BackgroundCoronary artery disease (CAD) outcomes consistently improve when they are routinely measured and provided back to physicians and hospitals. However, few centers around the world systematically track outcomes, and no global standards exist. Furthermore, patient-centered outcomes and longitudinal outcomes are under-represented in current assessments.Methods and ResultsThe nonprofit International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international Working Group to define a consensus standard set of outcome measures and risk factors for tracking, comparing, and improving the outcomes of CAD care. Members were drawn from 4 continents and 6 countries. Using a modified Delphi method, the ICHOM Working Group defined who should be tracked, what should be measured, and when such measurements should be performed. The ICHOM CAD consensus measures were designed to be relevant for all patients diagnosed with CAD, including those with acute myocardial infarction, angina, and asymptomatic CAD. Thirteen specific outcomes were chosen, including acute complications occurring within 30 days of acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, or percutaneous coronary intervention; and longitudinal outcomes for up to 5 years for patient-reported health status (Seattle Angina Questionnaire [SAQ-7], elements of Rose Dyspnea Score, and Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-2]), cardiovascular hospital admissions, cardiovascular procedures, renal failure, and mortality. Baseline demographic, cardiovascular disease, and comorbidity information is included to improve the interpretability of comparisons.ConclusionsICHOM recommends that this set of outcomes and other patient information be measured for all patients with CAD.

Gated SPECT of stress-injected sestamibi correlates well with echocardiographic assessment of regional function and thus adds information to perfusion SPECT: In patients without previous myocardial infarction, a single-injection stress perfusion/rest function approach using sestamibi-gated SPECT can substitute for conventional stress/rest myocardial perfusion imaging, adding a rest perfusion study only if there are nonreversible defects or consideration of attenuation artifacts. In patients with previous myocardial infarction, the gated SPECT approach does not replace the need for a rest perfusion study.

Automated gated SPECT provides an accurate assessment of ejection fraction and regional function, even in the presence of an earlier myocardial infarction with large perfusion defects and significant left ventricular dysfunction.

Invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the gold standard to assess the functional coronary stenosis. The non-invasive assessment of diameter stenosis (DS) using coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) has high false positive rate in contrast to FFR. Combining CTA with computational fluid dynamics (CFD), recent studies have shown promising predictions of FFRCT for superior assessment of lesion severity over CTA alone. The CFD models tend to be computationally expensive, however, and require several hours for completing analysis. Here, we introduce simplified models to predict noninvasive FFR at substantially less computational time. In this retrospective pilot study, 21 patients received coronary CTA. Subsequently a total of 32 vessels underwent invasive FFR measurement. For each vessel, FFR based on steady-state and analytical models (FFRSS and FFRAM, respectively) were calculated non-invasively based on CTA and compared with FFR. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 90.6% (87.5%), 80.0% (80.0%), 95.5% (90.9%), 88.9% (80.0%) and 91.3% (90.9%) respectively for FFRSS (and FFRAM) on a per-vessel basis, and were 75.0%, 50.0%, 86.4%, 62.5% and 79.2% respectively for DS. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.963, 0.954 and 0.741 for FFRSS, FFRAM and DS respectively, on a per-patient level. The results suggest that the CTA-derived FFRSS performed well in contrast to invasive FFR and they had better diagnostic performance than DS from CTA in the identification of functionally significant lesions. In contrast to FFRCT, FFRSS requires much less computational time.