Literature DB >> 24631507

Diagnostic value of PET-measured longitudinal flow gradient for the identification of coronary artery disease.

Ines Valenta1, Alessandra Quercioli2, Thomas H Schindler3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of a positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT)-determined longitudinal decrease in myocardial blood flow (MBF) gradient during hyperemia and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) for the identification of epicardial stenosis ≥50%.
BACKGROUND: Although PET-determined reductions in MFR are increasingly applied to identify epicardial lesions in coronary artery disease (CAD), it may be seen as a suboptimal approach due to the nonspecific origin of decreases in MFR.
METHODS: In 24 patients with suspected or known CAD, MBF was measured with (13)N-ammonia and PET/CT in ml/g/min at rest, during dipyridamole stimulation, and the corresponding MFR was calculated. MBF was also determined in the mid and mid-distal myocardium of the left ventricle (LV). A decrease in MBF from mid to mid-distal LV myocardium was defined as longitudinal MBF gradient. MBF parameters were determined in the myocardial region with stress-induced perfusion defect and with stenosis ≥50% (territory 1), without defect but with stenosis ≥50% (territory 2), or without stenosis ≥50% (territory 3).
RESULTS: In territories 1 and 2 with focal stenosis ≥50%, the severity of epicardial artery stenosis correlated with the Δlongitudinal MBF gradient (stress-rest) (r = 0.52; p < 0.0001), while this association was less pronounced for corresponding MFR (r = -0.40; p < 0.003). On a vessel-based analysis, the sensitivity and specificity of the Δlongitudinal MBF gradient in the identification of epicardial lesions was higher than those for MFR (88% vs. 71%, p ≤ 0.044; and 81% vs. 63%, p = 0.134, respectively). Combining both parameters resulted in an optimal sensitivity of 100% and intermediate specificity of 75%. The diagnostic accuracy was highest for the combined analysis than for the Δlongitudinal MBF gradient or MFR alone (94% vs. 86%, p ≤ 0.003; and 94% vs. 70%, p ≤ 0.0002).
CONCLUSIONS: The combined evaluation of a Δlongitudinal MBF gradient and MFR may evolve as a new promising analytic approach to further optimize the identification of CAD lesions.
Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CAD; MFR; PET; blood flow; circulation; coronary stenosis; flow gradient; microvascular function; myocardial perfusion

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24631507     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.01.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1876-7591


  14 in total

1.  Myocardial blood flow: Putting it into clinical perspective.

Authors:  Thomas Hellmut Schindler
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 2.  Quantitative myocardial blood flow with Rubidium-82 PET: a clinical perspective.

Authors:  Christoffer E Hagemann; Adam A Ghotbi; Andreas Kjær; Philip Hasbak
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-10-12

3.  Validation of pixel-wise parametric mapping of myocardial blood flow with ¹³NH₃ PET in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Roberto Sciagrà; Alessandro Passeri; Fabrizio Cipollini; Helga Castagnoli; Iacopo Olivotto; Cyrill Burger; Franco Cecchi; Alberto Pupi
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-06-27       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 4.  Longitudinal myocardial blood flow gradient and CAD detection.

Authors:  Ines Valenta; Richard L Wahl; Thomas H Schindler
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 5.  Cardiovascular positron emission tomography: established and emerging role in cardiovascular diseases.

Authors:  Amit Bansal; Karthikeyan Ananthasubramaniam
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2022-09-21       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 6.  Myocardial perfusion imaging: Lessons learned and work to be done-update.

Authors:  Ami E Iskandrian; Vasken Dilsizian; Ernest V Garcia; Rob S Beanlands; Manuel Cerqueira; Prem Soman; Daniel S Berman; Alberto Cuocolo; Andrew J Einstein; Charity J Morgan; Fadi G Hage; Heinrich R Schelbert; Jeroen J Bax; Joseph C Wu; Leslee J Shaw; Mehran M Sadeghi; Nagara Tamaki; Philipp A Kaufmann; Robert Gropler; Sharmila Dorbala; William Van Decker
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-11-06       Impact factor: 5.952

7.  Vessel-specific quantification of absolute myocardial blood flow, myocardial flow reserve and relative flow reserve by means of fused dynamic 13NH3 PET and CCTA: Ranges in a low-risk population and abnormality criteria.

Authors:  Marina Piccinelli; Sang-Geon Cho; Ernest V Garcia; Erick Alexanderson; Joo Myung Lee; C David Cooke; Nikhil Goyal; Mauricio Santos Sanchez; Russel D Folks; Zhengjia Chen; John Votaw; Bon-Kwon Koo; Hee-Seung Bom
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 5.952

8.  PET-measured longitudinal flow gradient correlates with invasive fractional flow reserve in CAD patients.

Authors:  Ines Valenta; Alexander Antoniou; Wael Marashdeh; Thorsten Leucker; Edward Kasper; Steven R Jones; Robert F Dannals; Lilja Solnes; Martin G Pomper; Thomas H Schindler
Journal:  Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 6.875

Review 9.  The year in cardiology 2015: imaging.

Authors:  Oliver Gaemperli; Victoria Delgado; Gilbert Habib; Philipp A Kaufmann; Jeroen J Bax
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2016-01-03       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 10.  Positron Emission Tomography-Determined Hyperemic Flow, Myocardial Flow Reserve, and Flow Gradient-Quo Vadis?

Authors:  Thorsten M Leucker; Ines Valenta; Thomas Hellmut Schindler
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2017-07-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.