The MATCH Investigation: CT Myocardial Perfusion and CT-FFR vs PET MPI: Complete Statistical Analysis

1. Trial at a Glance

This page covers the registry results for The MATCH Investigation: CT Myocardial Perfusion and CT-FFR vs PET MPI (NCT04316676), a na na study. The primary outcome is Myocardial Blood Flow.

2. Clinical Question

In general, a diagnostic comparison asks whether different measurement approaches yield comparable information, not whether one treatment improves a health outcome. The registry record does not report a numerical estimate of the difference between CT-MPI and PET-MPI, nor does it report an agreement analysis or a diagnostic classification threshold. Consequently, the stated question can be described, but the strength or precision of an answer cannot be assessed from the results recorded.

3. Trial Design

The MATCH Investigation is a completed, single-group diagnostic imaging study sponsored by Emory University. The registry lists an enrollment of 20 and gives the study dates as 2021-06-16 for the start and 2024-09-24 for primary completion. Its title identifies CT myocardial perfusion and CT fractional flow reserve alongside PET myocardial perfusion imaging. The stated overall goal is to compare absolute myocardial perfusion quantification from CT-MPI and coronary flow measured using CT-FFR with PET-MPI.

Participants referred for clinical PET-MPI were also to have CT-MPI and CT-FFR imaging for analysis of myocardial perfusion. The registry lists PET-MPI Protocol, CT-MPI, coronary CT angiography for CT-FFR calculation, and regadenoson among the interventions. The primary outcome timeframe is the day of the PET-MPI scan and the day of the CT-MPI and CT-FFR scans, with the latter scans occurring up to 90 days from the PET-MPI scan.

The record lists allocation as NA and masking as none. It identifies the model as single group, not a randomized comparison. This distinction matters: the imaging methods are assessed within the study population, rather than as treatments assigned to comparable independent groups. PET-MPI is the reference named in the study objective, not a separately randomized control arm. The record does not describe the order of all tests, whether that order was fixed, or how the interval between scans was handled in analysis.

The registry lists the study phase as NA and the status as completed. It records eight outcome measures and no analysis entries. The statistical analysis plan, recruitment details beyond the enrollment figure, and a sample-size justification for the trial itself are not reported in the registry record. The description of planning illustrations is not evidence that those assumptions governed the study design.

4. Participant Flow and Accounting

The registry reports how participants moved through each stage of the study. All counts below are exactly as posted; missing counts are not inferred from other stages.

Overall Study

Analysis population for the primary outcome, as defined in the registry: PET-MPI data were lost for two participants during an equipment move.

5. Baseline Characteristics

The table reproduces the baseline characteristics posted in the registry, which describe the participants analysed at baseline and help show whether the randomized groups were comparable.

6. Primary Endpoint

The registry lists the primary outcome as Myocardial Blood Flow, measured over Day of PET-MPI Scan, and Day of CT-MPI and CT-FFR Scans (up to 90 days).

The primary endpoint is myocardial blood flow, expressed in mL/g/min. It is a continuous measure reported as a mean with standard deviation. The registry describes it as an absolute quantification of myocardial perfusion, obtained using appropriate tracer kinetic models. The primary comparison is between CT-MPI and PET-MPI. The timeframe covers the day of the PET-MPI scan and the day of CT-MPI and CT-FFR scans, with CT scans performed up to 90 days from the PET scan.

In general, a continuous endpoint retains information across the range of observed measurements rather than reducing measurements to categories. A mean describes the central value in a group of observations, while a standard deviation describes their spread around that mean. Neither statistic, by itself, indicates how closely two imaging methods agree for individual participants. For a method comparison, estimates of between-method difference and their uncertainty are important for judging whether observed differences are small or potentially meaningful. Those numerical estimates are not reported in the registry record.

The registry says that PET-MPI data were lost for two participants during an equipment move. It does not give the primary endpoint values, the number included in each method's analysis, or the method used to handle those missing data. Accordingly, the endpoint definition is clear, but its observed values and comparative precision cannot be evaluated from the recorded results.

7. Why No Re-analysis Is Shown

8. Statistical Interpretation

9. Statistical Methods Explained

The registry defines the primary outcome as mean myocardial blood flow, a continuous measurement expressed in mL/g/min. It states that myocardial perfusion is quantified using tracer kinetic models. The primary description compares CT-MPI with PET-MPI. The registry does not specify the exact statistical test or estimator used to make that comparison, so no particular analysis method should be assumed.

What does a mean and standard deviation describe?

In general, the mean is a measure of the central location of continuous observations. The standard deviation describes how dispersed those observations are around the mean. A mean and standard deviation can help readers understand the scale and variability of measurements, but they are not a complete method-comparison analysis. In paired diagnostic measurements, the within-participant relationship matters: two methods can have similar averages while differing substantially for some individuals. Conversely, a difference in group averages does not describe the full pattern of paired differences.

The registry identifies the outcome's dispersion as standard deviation but does not provide the observed mean or standard deviation values. It also does not state whether the primary comparison was based on paired differences, an association measure, an agreement method, or another approach. The statistical analysis plan is not reported in the registry record. Therefore, general principles can explain how such methods are interpreted, but they cannot be attributed to this study's analysis.

What does uncertainty mean?

In general, a confidence interval gives a range of values compatible with the data and the assumptions of a statistical procedure. Its width conveys precision: a narrower interval indicates more precise estimation than a wider interval, under the same analytic framework. A confidence interval around a between-method estimate would help readers assess both the possible magnitude and uncertainty of the comparison. The registry record does not report a confidence interval for the primary endpoint, so the precision of any comparison cannot be assessed.

A p-value, in general, summarizes how compatible the observed data are with a specified null hypothesis under the assumptions of a test. It does not measure the size or clinical importance of an effect, and it does not establish agreement between measurement methods. No primary endpoint p-value is reported in the registry record. No threshold for interpreting a difference as acceptable or important is reported either.

How should paired imaging measurements be considered?

General method-comparison reasoning distinguishes association from agreement. Association describes whether measurements tend to move together. Agreement focuses on how close paired values are, including whether the size of differences changes across the measurement range. A paired difference estimate may describe average bias, while an agreement analysis may describe the spread of individual differences. These approaches answer related but different questions. The registry's goal mentions comparing absolute quantification, but it does not identify which of these analyses was performed or report their results.

Timing can also matter in general when measurements are obtained on different days: the interval may affect whether two tests reflect the same underlying state. The registry specifies scans on the PET-MPI day and the CT-MPI and CT-FFR day, with the latter scans up to 90 days from PET-MPI. It does not describe how scan timing or interval was incorporated into analysis. No assumption about that handling is warranted.

What can be inferred from planning illustrations?

The record describes planning illustrations based on an observed effect, with a two-sided significance level of 0.05, equal allocation between two arms, and a normal approximation. It states that the effect to detect is a specified fraction of the observed effect. These are planning assumptions for illustrations, not a description of the study's own design or evidence of observed power. The trial itself is listed as single group and is not a randomized two-arm comparison. No sample-size justification for the trial is reported in the registry record, and no numerical illustration values are included in the information.

In general, a planning calculation estimates the sample size needed to detect a prespecified effect under chosen assumptions. It is not a measure of the probability that a completed study has detected a true effect. Observed power is not a substitute for reporting an estimate and its uncertainty. Since the registry record does not include the outcome estimate used in the illustrations or the resulting sample-size values, those calculations cannot be evaluated as a basis for interpreting the study results.

Why might variability affect analysis?

In general, over-dispersion means that observed variability is greater than a model assumes. If a method assumes less variability than the data actually contain, uncertainty estimates can be too small and statistical evidence can appear stronger than warranted. The primary outcome is continuous and its stated dispersion measure is the standard deviation; the registry does not report a model or any assessment of over-dispersion. This concept is relevant as a general statistical caution, not as a finding about the study.

More broadly, transparent interpretation depends on the estimate, its uncertainty, the analysis population, and the prespecified method. The registry information identifies the endpoint and some study logistics, but does not report the numerical outcome results or the analysis details needed to reconstruct those elements. No recalculated comparison can be made from the recorded information.

10. Confidence Intervals for Each Arm

No two-arm comparison is shown for this trial, but each arm's mean can be given with a t-based 95% confidence interval computed from the posted mean, spread and number of participants.

R code and output

arm <- c("CT-MPI", "PET-MPI - Rest", "PET-MPI - Stress")
n   <- c(20, 18, 18)
m   <- c(1.6, 0.96, 2.4)
sp  <- c(0.43, 0.29, 1.09)
sd  <- sp      # posted standard deviations
for (i in seq_along(n)) {
  se <- sd[i] / sqrt(n[i]); h <- qt(0.975, n[i] - 1) * se
  cat(sprintf("CARM|%s|%d|%.3f|%.3f|%.3f|%.3f\n", arm[i], n[i], m[i], sd[i], m[i] - h, m[i] + h))
}

CARM  CT-MPI  20  1.600  0.430  1.399  1.801
CARM  PET-MPI - Rest  18  0.960  0.290  0.816  1.104
CARM  PET-MPI - Stress  18  2.400  1.090  1.858  2.942

11. Multiplicity, Missing Data and Analysis Populations

The registry lists eight outcome measures and no analysis entries. It does not state which outcomes were designated primary beyond the myocardial blood flow measure described as primary, nor does it report a multiplicity strategy. In general, when several outcomes or statistical tests are considered, the chance of finding at least one apparently notable result can increase. Methods that address multiplicity can control that risk, but the choice depends on the analysis plan and study aims. Whether any such approach was planned or used is not reported in the registry record.

Missing data are specifically noted for the primary outcome: PET-MPI data were lost for two participants during an equipment move. The registry does not report whether those participants had CT-MPI or CT-FFR data available, whether other measurements were missing, or how missing observations were handled. It also does not report the number of participants included in each endpoint analysis. These details are needed to understand which observations contributed to any estimate and whether the analyzed participants may differ from the enrolled group.

In general, missing-data methods rely on assumptions about why data are missing and how missingness relates to observed or unobserved values. A complete-case analysis, imputation, or another approach can lead to different estimates depending on those assumptions. No approach can be attributed to this study based on the registry record. The analysis populations, prespecified statistical methods, and any sensitivity analyses are not reported. The recorded loss of PET data should therefore be treated as a limitation in interpreting the intended comparison, while avoiding unsupported claims about its actual effect on results.

12. Safety Results

The registry reports serious adverse events as affected participants divided by participants at risk.

Deaths

Other (non-serious) adverse events

Participants with at least one non-serious event at or above the registry's 0% reporting threshold.

The registry reports safety counts separately for PET-MPI, CT-MPI, and CCTA with CT-FFR calculation. For each named group, 20 participants are listed as at risk for serious adverse events, other adverse events, and deaths. The recorded counts affected are zero for serious adverse events, zero for other adverse events, and zero deaths in each group. No top serious-event terms are listed.

These are descriptive counts in a single-group study, not results from a randomized safety comparison. The same enrollment figure appears for each imaging group; the record does not establish that these are separate, independent groups of participants. The counts therefore should not be interpreted as a head-to-head comparison of harms between treatments or as evidence that one method is safer than another.

In general, an absence of events recorded in a study does not demonstrate that an event cannot occur. Safety interpretation depends on the number followed, the duration and completeness of follow-up, how events were defined and collected, and the precision of the resulting estimate. The registry record does not provide additional details about those elements. The counts describe what was recorded for this study, but do not establish a risk estimate beyond those reported observations.

13. What the Result Does, and Does Not, Mean

The MATCH Investigation addresses a diagnostic measurement question: how CT-MPI estimates of myocardial blood flow compare with PET-MPI, with CT-FFR also included in the imaging evaluation. The registry identifies the primary endpoint, its units, the measurement framework, the study population description, and a single-group design. It also records that PET-MPI data were lost for two participants during an equipment move. These registry entries clarify the intended evaluation and an important data limitation.

What the record does not establish is the magnitude or direction of any difference between methods. No endpoint means, standard deviations, comparative estimate, confidence interval, or p-value are reported. There are no posted analysis entries. Accordingly, the record cannot support a conclusion that CT-MPI measurements are close to, different from, or interchangeable with PET-MPI measurements. Nor can it establish diagnostic accuracy, clinical benefit, or the performance of CT-FFR. Those questions require analyses and results that are not reported.

In general, comparison of average values is not equivalent to demonstrating agreement for individuals. Similarly, a statistical difference alone would not establish clinical importance; interpretation would require a meaningful threshold and a measure of uncertainty. Neither a threshold for acceptable agreement nor a numerical primary result is reported in the registry record.

The completed status indicates that the study is listed as completed, but completion does not itself show that the planned question was answered in the posted record. The safety figures report no affected participants or deaths in the listed groups, but they do not establish absence of risk or comparative safety. The study's enrollment of 20 and the noted missing PET-MPI data also make the transparency of analysis populations and uncertainty especially relevant. Since those details are not reported, the appropriate interpretation is limited to the design and details recorded, without extrapolation to other populations or clinical decisions.

14. Why This Trial Matters Statistically

This study is statistically interesting because it compares imaging-derived measurements rather than assigning participants to competing treatments. That design makes the distinction between a reference method, a comparator, and a randomized control arm important. PET-MPI is named as the reference for the stated CT-MPI comparison, while the study is listed as single group with no allocation. Reading the methods in that context helps prevent treatment-trial interpretations that the design does not support.

The primary measure is continuous myocardial blood flow, quantified in mL/g/min. Such measurements allow analysis of values across a range, but a comparison of means alone would not fully answer whether methods agree for individual participants. Statistical interpretation would benefit from clearly reported paired estimates and uncertainty, as well as a description of the method-comparison analysis. Those numerical results and methods are not reported in the registry record.

The record also notes that PET-MPI data for two participants were lost during an equipment move. Reporting how missing observations were handled and which participants contributed to each analysis is important because the primary comparison depends on measurements from both methods. The analysis populations and missing-data procedures are not reported.

Finally, the record lists eight outcome measures and no analysis entries. Without posted analysis details, readers cannot assess how multiple outcomes were handled or distinguish planned analyses from other analyses. The study's stated aim is clear, but its statistical contribution cannot be judged from the recorded outcomes alone. This distinction between a well-described question and an assessable result is central to transparent reporting of diagnostic research.

15. Limitations

• The posted summary statistics are the only data these results rest on; patient-level data, full protocols and statistical analysis plans are not available.
• Recalculated results are simple, unadjusted calculations from posted summaries. They do not replace the sponsor's prespecified analysis.

The main limitation for interpretation is the absence of numerical primary outcome results in the registry record. Although the endpoint is defined as mean myocardial blood flow and the comparison is identified, the record does not report the observed values or a between-method estimate. Its precision therefore cannot be evaluated. No confidence interval, p-value, or agreement analysis is reported.

The registry states that PET-MPI data were lost for two participants during an equipment move. It does not report the number included in each analysis, whether CT data remained available for those participants, or how missing data were handled. This prevents assessment of the analysis population and of the potential influence of the missing PET measurements.

The study is listed as a single-group, nonrandomized investigation with masking set to none. Thus, it is not a randomized comparison of independent imaging arms. The record does not report details of scan order or analysis of the interval between PET-MPI and CT imaging, which could be relevant when interpreting measurements collected on different days. The timeframe allows CT-MPI and CT-FFR scans up to 90 days from the PET-MPI scan.

The record lists eight outcome measures and no analysis entries. It does not report a statistical analysis plan, a multiplicity strategy, an approach to method agreement, or a sample-size justification for the study. The described planning assumptions are illustrations and do not establish the design rationale. Finally, the safety counts are descriptive; details about follow-up and event ascertainment are not reported. These gaps limit what can be concluded from the registry record and should not be filled with assumptions.

16. Related Tutorials

17. Related Statistical Calculators

18. Sources

• ClinicalTrials.gov: The MATCH Investigation: CT Myocardial Perfusion and CT-FFR vs PET MPI — NCT04316676.
• Registry record last updated 2026-01-06; status last verified 2025-12.
• Results first posted 2026-01-06.
• Data retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov on 2026-11-09.
• Group sizes, means, event counts and sponsor-reported p-values are reproduced as posted. Effect estimates, confidence intervals and p-values not attributed to the sponsor are independently calculated from the posted summary statistics.

19. Record Summary

The MATCH Investigation is a completed, single-group diagnostic imaging study sponsored by Emory University, with an enrollment of 20. It compares CT-MPI myocardial blood-flow quantification with PET-MPI and includes CT-FFR evaluation. The primary outcome is mean myocardial blood flow in mL/g/min, measured using tracer kinetic models. The timeframe covers PET-MPI on its scan day and CT-MPI and CT-FFR scans up to 90 days later.

The registry records that PET-MPI data were lost for two participants during an equipment move. It lists eight outcome measures and no analysis entries. Numerical results for the primary endpoint, analysis populations, missing-data procedures, and a statistical analysis plan are not reported in the registry record. Safety counts list no serious adverse events, other adverse events, or deaths in the named imaging groups. The available record describes the question and design but does not permit evaluation of the primary comparison's magnitude or precision.