Literature DB >> 25277618

Quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion in the detection of significant coronary artery disease: cutoff values and diagnostic accuracy of quantitative [(15)O]H2O PET imaging.

Ibrahim Danad1, Valtteri Uusitalo2, Tanja Kero3, Antti Saraste2, Pieter G Raijmakers4, Adriaan A Lammertsma4, Martijn W Heymans5, Sami A Kajander2, Mikko Pietilä2, Stefan James6, Jens Sörensen3, Paul Knaapen1, Juhani Knuuti7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated improved diagnostic accuracy for detecting coronary artery disease (CAD) when myocardial blood flow (MBF) is quantified in absolute terms, but there are no uniformly accepted cutoff values for hemodynamically significant CAD.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine cutoff values for absolute MBF and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative [(15)O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET).
METHODS: A total of 330 patients underwent both quantitative [(15)O]H2O PET imaging and invasive coronary angiography in conjunction with fractional flow reserve measurements. A stenosis >90% and/or fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 was considered obstructive; a stenosis <30% and/or fractional flow reserve >0.80 was nonobstructive.
RESULTS: Hemodynamically significant CAD was diagnosed in 116 (41%) of 281 patients who fulfilled study criteria for CAD. Resting perfusion was 1.00 ± 0.25 and 0.92 ± 0.23 ml/min/g in regions supplied by nonstenotic and significantly stenosed vessels, respectively (p < 0.001). During stress, perfusion increased to 3.26 ± 1.04 ml/min/g and 1.73 ± 0.67 ml/min/g, respectively (p < 0.001). The optimal cutoff values were 2.3 and 2.5 for hyperemic MBF and myocardial flow reserve, respectively. For MBF, these cutoff values showed a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for detecting significant CAD of 89%, 84%, and 86%, respectively, at a per-patient level and 87%, 85%, and 85% at a per-vessel level. The corresponding myocardial flow reserve values were 86%, 72%, and 78% (per patient) and 80%, 82%, and 81% (per vessel). Age and sex significantly affected diagnostic accuracy of quantitative PET.
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative MBF measurements with the use of [(15)O]H2O PET provided high diagnostic performance, but both sex and age should be taken into account.
Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  myocardial blood flow; myocardial flow reserve; receiver-operator characteristic curve; sensitivity; specificity

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25277618     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.069

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


  78 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.  Clinical use of quantitative cardiac perfusion PET: rationale, modalities and possible indications. Position paper of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM).

Authors:  Roberto Sciagrà; Alessandro Passeri; Jan Bucerius; Hein J Verberne; Riemer H J A Slart; Oliver Lindner; Alessia Gimelli; Fabien Hyafil; Denis Agostini; Christopher Übleis; Marcus Hacker
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 3.  Coronary microvascular dysfunction, microvascular angina, and treatment strategies.

Authors:  Mark A Marinescu; Adrián I Löffler; Michelle Ouellette; Lavone Smith; Christopher M Kramer; Jamieson M Bourque
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-02

Review 4.  Quantification of PET Myocardial Blood Flow.

Authors:  Matthieu Pelletier-Galarneau; Patrick Martineau; Georges El Fakhri
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 2.931

5.  15-O-water myocardial flow reserve PET and CT angiography by full hybrid PET/CT as a potential alternative to invasive angiography.

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

6.  Guiding coronary revascularization using PET stress myocardial perfusion imaging: The proof is in the pudding.

Authors:  Ajay V Srivastava; Karthik Ananthasubramaniam
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 5.952

7.  Heart failure patients with prediabetes and newly diagnosed diabetes display abnormalities in myocardial metabolism.

Authors:  Roni Nielsen; Anders Jorsal; Peter Iversen; Lars Tolbod; Kirsten Bouchelouche; Jens Sørensen; Hendrik Johannes Harms; Allan Flyvbjerg; Hans Erik Bøtker; Henrik Wiggers
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 5.952

8.  Measurement of MBF by PET is ready for prime time as an integral part of clinical reports in diagnosis and risk assessment of patients with known or suspected CAD-PRO.

Authors:  Marcelo F Di Carli
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 5.952

9.  Clinical Quantification of Myocardial Blood Flow Using PET: Joint Position Paper of the SNMMI Cardiovascular Council and the ASNC.

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

10.  SPECT but not PET remains as the working horse of the state of the art nuclear cardiac imaging laboratory: Con.

Authors:  Antti Saraste; Juhani Knuuti
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 5.952

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.