OBJECTIVES: This study tests the hypothesis that absolute measurement of adenosine (Ado)-stimulated myocardial blood flow (MBFado) is superior to measurement of relative tracer uptake for identification of hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) ((13)N-ammonia) with Ado has the capability to more accurately assess hemodynamic severity of CAD than measurement of relative tracer content (TC) (nCi/ml) during Ado, which by definition depends on at least 1 normal zone to which others are compared. METHODS: A total of 27 patients (20 male, 58 +/- 11 years, mean +/- SD) with known or suspected CAD and 21 normal subjects (13 male, 38 +/- 10 years) were studied. Parametric (K1) MBF images and TC sum images were analyzed. A stenosis > or =70% defined significant CAD. The receiver-operator characteristic curve (ROC) analysis area under the curve (AUC) compared MBF and TC results. Cut-point analysis for sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy showed the best MBF criteria for CAD as MBFado <1.85 ml/min/g and the best TC as <70% maximum. The myocardial blood flow reserve ratio (MBFR) (optimal <2.0x) also was studied. RESULTS: The ROC analysis of PET parameters showed that MBFado was superior to <70% maximum uptake for CAD detection (n = 144 vessels; AUC 0.900 vs. 0.690, respectively, p < 0.0001) and was marginally greater than MBFR (0.856; p = 0.10). For CAD cut-point analysis, MBFado accuracy exceeded TC (0.84 vs. 0.72, respectively, p = 0.005), as did sensitivity (0.81 vs. 0.48, respectively; p = 0.001). Specificity of MBFado for CAD classification (0.85) was comparable to TC (0.82; p = NS). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive accuracy for MBFR were 0.62, 0.85, and 0.79, respectively. The difference in specificity was not significant versus MBFado. However, MBFado was more sensitive than MBFR (p = 0.01). The difference in predictive accuracy was borderline (p = 0.06) in favor of MBFado. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of Ado-stimulated absolute MBF is superior to relative measurement of myocardial tracer retention for identification of CAD and can be accomplished with a single MBFado measurement.
OBJECTIVES: This study tests the hypothesis that absolute measurement of adenosine (Ado)-stimulated myocardial blood flow (MBFado) is superior to measurement of relative tracer uptake for identification of hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) ((13)N-ammonia) with Ado has the capability to more accurately assess hemodynamic severity of CAD than measurement of relative tracer content (TC) (nCi/ml) during Ado, which by definition depends on at least 1 normal zone to which others are compared. METHODS: A total of 27 patients (20 male, 58 +/- 11 years, mean +/- SD) with known or suspected CAD and 21 normal subjects (13 male, 38 +/- 10 years) were studied. Parametric (K1) MBF images and TC sum images were analyzed. A stenosis > or =70% defined significant CAD. The receiver-operator characteristic curve (ROC) analysis area under the curve (AUC) compared MBF and TC results. Cut-point analysis for sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy showed the best MBF criteria for CAD as MBFado <1.85 ml/min/g and the best TC as <70% maximum. The myocardial blood flow reserve ratio (MBFR) (optimal <2.0x) also was studied. RESULTS: The ROC analysis of PET parameters showed that MBFado was superior to <70% maximum uptake for CAD detection (n = 144 vessels; AUC 0.900 vs. 0.690, respectively, p < 0.0001) and was marginally greater than MBFR (0.856; p = 0.10). For CAD cut-point analysis, MBFado accuracy exceeded TC (0.84 vs. 0.72, respectively, p = 0.005), as did sensitivity (0.81 vs. 0.48, respectively; p = 0.001). Specificity of MBFado for CAD classification (0.85) was comparable to TC (0.82; p = NS). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive accuracy for MBFR were 0.62, 0.85, and 0.79, respectively. The difference in specificity was not significant versus MBFado. However, MBFado was more sensitive than MBFR (p = 0.01). The difference in predictive accuracy was borderline (p = 0.06) in favor of MBFado. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of Ado-stimulated absolute MBF is superior to relative measurement of myocardial tracer retention for identification of CAD and can be accomplished with a single MBFado measurement.