Quantitative myocardial perfusion
Constriction, Pathologic
Coronary Angiography
Coronary Artery Disease
/ diagnostic imaging
Coronary Circulation
Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial
Humans
Myocardial Perfusion Imaging
Perfusion
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
Positron-Emission Tomography
Reference Values
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Myocardial perfusion imaging
coronary-CT
quantitative perfusion positron emission tomography
rubidium 82
Journal
Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology
ISSN: 1532-6551
Titre abrégé: J Nucl Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9423534
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2022
04 2022
Historique:
received:
28
02
2020
accepted:
22
06
2020
pubmed:
18
7
2020
medline:
13
4
2022
entrez:
18
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We aimed to assess normal values for quantified myocardial blood flow (MBF) on a hybrid PET/coronary-CT scanner and to test their diagnostic performance in patients with suspected CAD. Patients underwent 357 consecutive patients were included. Global sMBF and MFR were higher in normal patients than in patients with CAD (3.61 ± 0.71 vs 3.04 ± 0.77, P < 0.0001; 3.08 ± 0.84 vs 2.68 ± 0.79, P = 0.0001), but not different compared to patients with non-obstructive stenosis (3.61 ± 0.71 vs 3.43 ± 0.69, P = 0.052; 3.08 ± 0.84 vs 2.99 ± 0.82, P = 0.45). sMBF yielded superior accuracy over MFR in identifying both ischemia (AUC 0.74 vs 0.62, P = 0.003) and severe ischemia (AUC 0.88 vs 0.78, P = 0.012). Optimal threshold for global sMBF to rule out myocardial ischemia was 3.5 mL g Normal quantitative values are provided. Global sMBF provided higher diagnostic accuracy than MFR. Using sMBF-threshold of 3.5 mL·g
Identifiants
pubmed: 32676910
doi: 10.1007/s12350-020-02264-4
pii: 10.1007/s12350-020-02264-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
464-473Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology.
Références
Flotats A, Bravo PE, Fukushima K, Chaudhry MA, Merrill J, Bengel FM. 82Rb PET myocardial perfusion imaging is superior to 99mTc-labelled agent SPECT in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1233-9.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-012-2140-x
Bengel FM, Higuchi T, Javadi MS, Lautamäki R. Cardiac positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1-15.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.02.065
Sunderland JJ, Pan X-B, Declerck J, Menda Y. Dependency of cardiac rubidium-82 imaging quantitative measures on age, gender, vascular territory, and software in a cardiovascular normal population. J Nucl Cardiol Off Publ Am Soc Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:72-84.
Prior JO, Allenbach G, Valenta I, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb positron emission tomography: Clinical validation with 15O-water. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1037-47.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-012-2082-3
Danad I, Uusitalo V, Kero T, et al. Quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion in the detection of significant coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1464-75.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.069
Arbab-Zadeh A, Di Carli MF, Cerci R, et al. Accuracy of computed tomographic angiography and single-photon emission computed tomography-acquired myocardial perfusion imaging for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:e003533.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.115.003533
Tahari AK, Lee A, Rajaram M, et al. Absolute myocardial flow quantification with (82)Rb PET/CT: Comparison of different software packages and methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:126-35.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-013-2537-1
Fukushima K, Javadi MS, Higuchi T, et al. Prediction of short-term cardiovascular events using quantification of global myocardial flow reserve in patients referred for clinical 82Rb PET perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2011;52:726-32.
Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams KA, et al. Impaired myocardial flow reserve on rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging predicts adverse outcomes in patients assessed for myocardial ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:740-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.01.065
Herzog BA, Husmann L, Valenta I, et al. Long-term prognostic value of 13N-ammonia myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography added value of coronary flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:150-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.02.069
Stuijfzand WJ, Uusitalo V, Kero T, et al. Relative flow reserve derived from quantitative perfusion imaging may not outperform stress myocardial blood flow for identification of hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.114.002400 .
doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.114.002400
pubmed: 25596142
Lortie M, Beanlands RSB, Yoshinaga K, Klein R, DaSilva JN, deKemp RA. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1765-74.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-007-0478-2
Czernin J, Muller P, Chan S, et al. Influence of age and hemodynamics on myocardial blood flow and flow reserve. Circulation. 1993;88:62-9.
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.88.1.62
Hansen CL, Goldstein RA, Akinboboye OO, et al. Myocardial perfusion and function: Single photon emission computed tomography. J Nucl Cardiol Off Publ Am Soc Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:e39-60.
American Heart Association Writing Group on Myocardial Segmentation and Registration for Cardiac Imaging, Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, et al. Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart: A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2002;105:539-542.
Knuuti J, Kajander S, Mäki M, Ukkonen H. Quantification of myocardial blood flow will reform the detection of CAD. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:497-506.
doi: 10.1007/s12350-009-9101-1
Caobelli F. Anatomical and functional assessment of coronary artery disease in patients with stable angina: Which is the gold standard? J Nucl Cardiol. 2019;9:S26-35.
Tonino PA, Fearon WF, De Bruyne B, et al. Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study: fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2816-21.
Gaur S, Øvrehus KA, Dey D, et al. Coronary plaque quantification and fractional flow reserve by coronary computed tomography angiography identify ischaemia-causing lesions. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:1220-7.
Toth G, Hamilos M, Pyxaras S, et al. Evolving concepts of angiogram: fractional flow reserve discordances in 4000 coronary stenoses. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2831-8.
Hoffmann U, Bamberg F, Chae CU, et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography for early triage of patients with acute chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:1642-50.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.01.052
Caobelli F. Left ventricular segmentation in myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography: Tailor-made or prêt-à-porter? Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;20:502-3.
doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jey216
Slomka PJ, Alexanderson E, Jácome R, et al. Comparison of clinical tools for measurements of regional stress and rest myocardial blood flow assessed with 13N-ammonia PET/CT. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2012;53:171-81.
Nesterov SV, Deshayes E, Sciagrà R, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow in absolute terms using 82Rb PET imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:1119-27.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.08.003