Literature DB >> 21816311

Impaired myocardial flow reserve on rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging predicts adverse outcomes in patients assessed for myocardial ischemia.

Maria C Ziadi1, Robert A Dekemp, Kathryn A Williams, Ann Guo, Benjamin J W Chow, Jennifer M Renaud, Terrence D Ruddy, Niroshi Sarveswaran, Rebecca E Tee, Rob S B Beanlands.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the prognostic value of myocardial flow reserve (MFR) using rubidium-82 ((82)Rb) positron emission tomography (PET) in patients assessed for ischemia.
BACKGROUND: The clinical value of MFR quantification using (82)Rb PET beyond relative myocardial perfusion imaging remains uncertain.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 704 consecutive patients; 677 (96%) completed follow-up (median 387 days [interquartile range: 375 to 416 days]). Patients were divided into 4 groups: I, normal summed stress score (SSS) (<4) and normal myocardial flow reserve (MFR) (>2); II, normal SSS and MFR <2; III, SSS ≥4 and MFR ≥2; IV, SSS ≥4 and MFR <2.
RESULTS: For patients with a normal SSS and those with an abnormal SSS, there were significant differences in outcomes for hard events (cardiac death and myocardial infarction) between patients with MFR ≥2 and those with MFR <2 (I: 1.3% vs. II: 2% [p = 0.029]; III: 1.1% vs. IV: 11.4% [p = 0.05]) and for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001, respectively). In the adjusted Cox model, MFR was an independent predictor of hard events (hazard ratio: 3.3; 95% confidence interval: 1.1 to 9.5; p = 0.029) and MACE (hazard ratio: 2.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.4 to 4.4, p = 0.003). The incremental prognostic value of the MFR over the SSS was demonstrated by comparing the adjusted SSS model with and without the MFR for hard events (p = 0.0197) and MACE (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: MFR quantified using (82)Rb PET predicts hard cardiac events and MACE independent of the SSS and other parameters. Routine assessment of (82)Rb PET-quantified MFR could improve risk stratification for patients being investigated for ischemia.
Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21816311     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.01.065

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  191 in total

1.  Advances in clinical application of quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Juhani Knuuti; Antti Saraste
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 2.  PET: Is myocardial flow quantification a clinical reality?

Authors:  Antti Saraste; Sami Kajander; Chunlei Han; Sergey V Nesterov; Juhani Knuuti
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 3.  Prognosis in the era of comparative effectiveness research: where is nuclear cardiology now and where should it be?

Authors:  Leslee J Shaw; Fadi G Hage; Daniel S Berman; Rory Hachamovitch; Ami Iskandrian
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 5.952

4.  Relationship Between Quantitative Adverse Plaque Features From Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography and Downstream Impaired Myocardial Flow Reserve by 13N-Ammonia Positron Emission Tomography: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Damini Dey; Mariana Diaz Zamudio; Annika Schuhbaeck; Luis Eduardo Juarez Orozco; Yuka Otaki; Heidi Gransar; Debiao Li; Guido Germano; Stephan Achenbach; Daniel S Berman; Aloha Meave; Erick Alexanderson; Piotr J Slomka
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 7.792

5.  Assessment of endothelial function and myocardial flow reserve using (15)O-water PET without attenuation correction.

Authors:  Stéphane Tuffier; Damien Legallois; Annette Belin; Michael Joubert; Alban Bailliez; Michel Redonnet; Denis Agostini; Alain Manrique
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 6.  Reasons and implications of agreements and disagreements between coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Manish Motwani; Mahsaw Motlagh; Anuj Gupta; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 7.  Assessing the prognostic implications of myocardial perfusion studies: identification of patients at risk vs patients who may benefit from intervention?

Authors:  Paul Cremer; Rory Hachamovitch
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 8.  Impact of obesity and bariatric surgery on metabolism and coronary circulatory function.

Authors:  Ines Valenta; Vasken Dilsizian; Alessandra Quercioli; Freimut D Jüngling; Giuseppe Ambrosio; Richard Wahl; Thomas H Schindler
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 2.931

9.  Interaction of impaired coronary flow reserve and cardiomyocyte injury on adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients without overt coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Viviany R Taqueti; Brendan M Everett; Venkatesh L Murthy; Mariya Gaber; Courtney R Foster; Jon Hainer; Ron Blankstein; Sharmila Dorbala; Marcelo F Di Carli
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  Assessment of left anterior descending artery stenosis of intermediate severity by fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, and non-invasive coronary flow reserve.

Authors:  P Meimoun; J Clerc; D Ardourel; U Djou; S Martis; T Botoro; F Elmkies; H Zemir; A Luycx-Bore; J Boulanger
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 2.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.