UNLABELLED: Our objective was to study the diagnostic performance of regadenoson (82)Rb myocardial perfusion PET imaging to detect obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: We studied 134 patients (mean age, 63 ± 12 y; mean body mass index, 31 ± 9 kg/m(2)) without known CAD (96 with coronary angiography and 38 with low pretest likelihood of CAD). Stress left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) minus rest LVEF defined LVEF reserve. The Duke score was used to estimate the anatomic extent of jeopardized myocardium. RESULTS: Regadenoson PET had a high sensitivity, 92% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83%-97%), in detecting obstructive CAD, with a normalcy rate of 97% (95% CI, 86%-99%), specificity of 77% (54/70 patients; 95% CI, 66%-86%), and area under the receiver-operator-characteristic curve of 0.847 (95% CI, 0.774-0.903; P < 0.001). Regadenoson PET demonstrated high sensitivity to detect CAD in patients with single-vessel CAD (89%; 95% CI, 70%-98%). The mean LVEF reserve was significantly higher in patients with normal myocardial perfusion imaging results (6.5% ± 5.4%) than in those with mild (4.3 ± 5.1, P = 0.03) and moderate to severe reversible defects (-0.2% ± 8.4%, P = 0.001). Also, mean LVEF reserve was significantly higher in patients with a low likelihood of CAD (7.2% ± 4.5%, P < 0.0001) and mild or moderate jeopardized myocardium than in those with significant jeopardized myocardium (score ≥ 6), -2.8% ± 8.3%. CONCLUSION: Regadenoson (82)Rb myocardial perfusion imaging is accurate for the detection of obstructive CAD. LVEF reserve is high in patients without significant ischemia or significant angiographic jeopardized myocardium.
UNLABELLED: Our objective was to study the diagnostic performance of regadenoson (82)Rb myocardial perfusion PET imaging to detect obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: We studied 134 patients (mean age, 63 ± 12 y; mean body mass index, 31 ± 9 kg/m(2)) without known CAD (96 with coronary angiography and 38 with low pretest likelihood of CAD). Stress left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) minus rest LVEF defined LVEF reserve. The Duke score was used to estimate the anatomic extent of jeopardized myocardium. RESULTS:Regadenoson PET had a high sensitivity, 92% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83%-97%), in detecting obstructive CAD, with a normalcy rate of 97% (95% CI, 86%-99%), specificity of 77% (54/70 patients; 95% CI, 66%-86%), and area under the receiver-operator-characteristic curve of 0.847 (95% CI, 0.774-0.903; P < 0.001). Regadenoson PET demonstrated high sensitivity to detect CAD in patients with single-vessel CAD (89%; 95% CI, 70%-98%). The mean LVEF reserve was significantly higher in patients with normal myocardial perfusion imaging results (6.5% ± 5.4%) than in those with mild (4.3 ± 5.1, P = 0.03) and moderate to severe reversible defects (-0.2% ± 8.4%, P = 0.001). Also, mean LVEF reserve was significantly higher in patients with a low likelihood of CAD (7.2% ± 4.5%, P < 0.0001) and mild or moderate jeopardized myocardium than in those with significant jeopardized myocardium (score ≥ 6), -2.8% ± 8.3%. CONCLUSION:Regadenoson (82)Rb myocardial perfusion imaging is accurate for the detection of obstructive CAD. LVEF reserve is high in patients without significant ischemia or significant angiographic jeopardized myocardium.
Authors: S Kajander; E Joutsiniemi; M Saraste; M Pietilä; H Ukkonen; A Saraste; H T Sipilä; M Teräs; M Mäki; J Airaksinen; J Hartiala; J Knuuti Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-07-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Thomas C Gerber; J Jeffrey Carr; Andrew E Arai; Robert L Dixon; Victor A Ferrari; Antoinette S Gomes; Gary V Heller; Cynthia H McCollough; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Fred A Mettler; Jennifer H Mieres; Richard L Morin; Michael V Yester Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Srinivasan Senthamizhchelvan; Paco E Bravo; Caroline Esaias; Martin A Lodge; Jennifer Merrill; Robert F Hobbs; George Sgouros; Frank M Bengel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Choukri Mekkaoui; Farid Jadbabaie; Donald P Dione; David F Meoli; Kailasnath Purushothaman; Luiz Belardinelli; Albert J Sinusas Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-10
Authors: John J Mahmarian; Manuel D Cerqueira; Ami E Iskandrian; Timothy M Bateman; Gregory S Thomas; Robert C Hendel; Lemuel A Moye; Ann W Olmsted Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-08
Authors: Sara L Partington; Viswanatha Lanka; Jon Hainer; Ron Blankstein; Hicham Skali; Daniel E Forman; Marcelo F Di Carli; Sharmila Dorbala Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-05-08 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Maria Clementina Giorgi; Jose Claudio Meneghetti; Jose Soares; Marisa Izaki; Andréa Falcão; Rodrigo Imada; William Chalela; Marco Antonio de Oliveira; Cesar Nomura; Hein J Verberne Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Venkatesh L Murthy; Timothy M Bateman; Rob S Beanlands; Daniel S Berman; Salvador Borges-Neto; Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; Manuel D Cerqueira; Robert A deKemp; E Gordon DePuey; Vasken Dilsizian; Sharmila Dorbala; Edward P Ficaro; Ernest V Garcia; Henry Gewirtz; Gary V Heller; Howard C Lewin; Saurabh Malhotra; April Mann; Terrence D Ruddy; Thomas H Schindler; Ronald G Schwartz; Piotr J Slomka; Prem Soman; Marcelo F Di Carli; Andrew Einstein; Raymond Russell; James R Corbett Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 5.952