Esa Joutsiniemi1, Antti Saraste2, Mikko Pietilä1, Maija Mäki3, Sami Kajander4, Heikki Ukkonen2, Juhani Airaksinen1, Juhani Knuuti5. 1. Heart Center, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 2. Heart Center, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland Turku PET Centre, University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, Turku 20520, Finland. 3. Turku PET Centre, University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, Turku 20520, Finland Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 4. Turku PET Centre, University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, Turku 20520, Finland. 5. Turku PET Centre, University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, Turku 20520, Finland juhani.knuuti@utu.fi.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We compared the accuracy of quantified myocardial flow reserve and absolute stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) alone in the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: Myocardial flow reserve, i.e. ratio of stress and rest flow, has been commonly used to detect CAD with many imaging modalities. However, it is not known whether absolute stress flow alone is sufficient for detection of significant CAD. METHODS: We enrolled 104 patients with moderate (30-70%) pre-test likelihood of CAD without previous myocardial infarction. MBF was measured by positron emission tomography and O-15-water at rest and during the adenosine stress in the regions of the left anterior descending, left circumflex, and right coronary artery. All the patients underwent invasive coronary angiography including the measurement of fractional flow reserve when appropriate. RESULTS: Quantified myocardial flow reserve (optimal cut-off value 2.5) detected significant coronary stenosis with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 81, 87, 66 and 94%, respectively. When compared with flow reserve, absolute MBF at stress (optimal cut-off value of 2.4 mL/min/g) was more accurate in detecting significant coronary stenosis [area under the curve (AUC) 0.94 vs. 0.90, P = 0.02] with sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 95% (P = 0.03 vs. flow reserve), 90, 73, and 98%, respectively. An absolute increase of MBF from rest to stress by <1.5 mL/g/min had also similar accuracy in detecting CAD (AUC: 0.95). The results were comparable in patients who did and did not receive i.v. beta-blockers prior imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute stress perfusion alone was superior to perfusion reserve in the detection of haemodynamically significant CAD and allows shorter imaging protocols with smaller radiation dose. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: We compared the accuracy of quantified myocardial flow reserve and absolute stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) alone in the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: Myocardial flow reserve, i.e. ratio of stress and rest flow, has been commonly used to detect CAD with many imaging modalities. However, it is not known whether absolute stress flow alone is sufficient for detection of significant CAD. METHODS: We enrolled 104 patients with moderate (30-70%) pre-test likelihood of CAD without previous myocardial infarction. MBF was measured by positron emission tomography and O-15-water at rest and during the adenosine stress in the regions of the left anterior descending, left circumflex, and right coronary artery. All the patients underwent invasive coronary angiography including the measurement of fractional flow reserve when appropriate. RESULTS: Quantified myocardial flow reserve (optimal cut-off value 2.5) detected significant coronary stenosis with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 81, 87, 66 and 94%, respectively. When compared with flow reserve, absolute MBF at stress (optimal cut-off value of 2.4 mL/min/g) was more accurate in detecting significant coronary stenosis [area under the curve (AUC) 0.94 vs. 0.90, P = 0.02] with sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 95% (P = 0.03 vs. flow reserve), 90, 73, and 98%, respectively. An absolute increase of MBF from rest to stress by <1.5 mL/g/min had also similar accuracy in detecting CAD (AUC: 0.95). The results were comparable in patients who did and did not receive i.v. beta-blockers prior imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute stress perfusion alone was superior to perfusion reserve in the detection of haemodynamically significant CAD and allows shorter imaging protocols with smaller radiation dose. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Maria Sciammarella; Uttam M Shrestha; Youngho Seo; Grant T Gullberg; Elias H Botvinick Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Anders Thomassen; Poul-Erik Braad; Kasper T Pedersen; Henrik Petersen; Allan Johansen; Axel C P Diederichsen; Hans Mickley; Lisette O Jensen; Juhani Knuuti; Oke Gerke; Poul F Høilund-Carlsen Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Ahmed Haider; Susan Bengs; Monika Maredziak; Michael Messerli; Michael Fiechter; Andreas A Giannopoulos; Valerie Treyer; Moritz Schwyzer; Christel Hermann Kamani; Dimitri Patriki; Elia von Felten; Dominik C Benz; Tobias A Fuchs; Christoph Gräni; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Philipp A Kaufmann; Ronny R Buechel; Catherine Gebhard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Catherine Gebhard; Michael Fiechter; Bernhard A Herzog; Christine Lohmann; Susan Bengs; Valerie Treyer; Michael Messerli; Dominik C Benz; Andreas A Giannopoulos; Christoph Gräni; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Ronny R Buechel; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-05-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Daniel Juneau; Kai Yi Wu; Nicole Kaps; Jason Yao; Jennifer M Renaud; Rob S B Beanlands; Terrence D Ruddy; Robert A deKemp Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2021-01-03 Impact factor: 5.952