Skip to main content
. 2022 Sep 9;101(36):e30477. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030477

Table 2.

Comparison of diagnostic performance among static CTP and dynamic CTP on per-vessel analysis.

Parameters TP TN FP FN Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) PPV (%) NPV (%) Diagnostic accuracy (%) AUC
Static CTP
 Visual analysis 8 103 2 12 40.0 (19.1–63.9) 98.1 (93.3–99.8) 80.0 (47.8–94.6) 89.6 (85.7–92.5) 88.8 (81.9–93.7) 0.690 (0.602–0.770)
 Quantitative analysis (myocardial attenuation ≤82 HU) 9 92 13 11 45.0 (23.1–68.5) 87.6 (79.8–93.2) 40.9 (25.5–58.3) 89.3 (84.8–92.6) 80.8 (72.8–87.3) 0.663 (0.573–0.745)
 Combined visual and quantitative analysis 11 92 13 9 55.0 (32.5–76.9) 87.6 (79.8–93.2) 45.8 (30.7–61.7) 91.1 (86.2–94.3) 82.4 (74.6–88.6) 0.713 (0.625–0.790)
Dynamic CTP
 Visual analysis 10 103 2 10 50.0 (27.2–72.8) 98.1 (93.3–99.8) 83.3 (54.2–95.5) 91.2 (86.9–94.1) 90.4 (83.8–94.9) 0.740 (0.654–0.815)
 Quantitative analysis
(MBF ≤ 101 mL/100 mL/min)
15 82 23 5 75.0 (50.9–91.3) 78.1 (69.0–85.6) 39.5 (29.6–50.3) 94.3 (88.4–97.2) 77.6 (69.3–84.6) 0.765 (0.681–0.837)
 Combined visual and quantitative analysis 16 82 23 4 80.0 (56.3–94.3) 78.1 (69.0–85.6) 41.0 (31.3–51.5) 95.3 (89.5–98.0) 78.4 (70.2–85.3) 0.790 (0.709–0.858)
Static CTP vs Dynamic CTP
P value (visual analysis) .530 1.000 .845 .683 .558 .546
P value (quantitative analysis) .056 .069 .994 .217 .534 .203
P value (combined visual and quantitative analysis) .096 .069 .786 .259 .426 .312

AUC = area under the curve, CTP = computed tomography perfusion, FN = false negative, FP = false positive, MBF = myocardial blood flow, NPV = negative predictive value, PPV = positive predictive value, TN = true negative, TP = true positive.