Wijnand J Stuijfzand1, Valtteri Uusitalo1, Tanja Kero1, Ibrahim Danad1, Mischa T Rijnierse1, Antti Saraste1, Pieter G Raijmakers1, Adriaan A Lammertsma1, Hans J Harms1, Martijn W Heymans1, Marc C Huisman1, Koen M Marques1, Sami A Kajander1, Mikko Pietilä1, Jens Sörensen1, Niels van Royen1, Juhani Knuuti1, Paul Knaapen2. 1. From the Departments of Cardiology (W.J.S., I.D., M.T.R., K.M.M., N.v.R., P.K.), Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (P.G.R., A.A.L, H.J.H., M.C.H.), Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (M.W.H.), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Turku PET Centre, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland (V.U., A.S., S.A.K, M.P., J.K.); and Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET, Institution of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden (T.K., J.S.). 2. From the Departments of Cardiology (W.J.S., I.D., M.T.R., K.M.M., N.v.R., P.K.), Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (P.G.R., A.A.L, H.J.H., M.C.H.), Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (M.W.H.), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Turku PET Centre, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland (V.U., A.S., S.A.K, M.P., J.K.); and Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET, Institution of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden (T.K., J.S.). p.knaapen@vumc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging is increasingly used for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Quantitative perfusion imaging allows to noninvasively calculate fractional flow reserve (FFR). This so-called relative flow reserve (RFR) is defined as the ratio of hyperemic myocardial blood flow (MBF) in a stenotic area to hyperemic MBF in a normal perfused area. The aim of this study was to assess the value of RFR in the detection of significant coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: From a clinical population of patients with suspected coronary artery disease who underwent oxygen-15-labeled water cardiac positron emission tomography and invasive coronary angiography, 92 patients with single- or 2-vessel disease were included. Intermediate lesions (diameter stenosis, 30%-90%; n=75) were interrogated by FFR. Thirty-eight (41%) vessels were deemed hemodynamically significant (>90% stenosis or FFR≤0.80). Hyperemic MBF, coronary flow reserve, and RFR were lower for vessels with a hemodynamically significant lesion (2.01±0.78 versus 2.90±1.16 mL·min(-1)·g(-1); P<0.001, 2.27±1.03 versus 3.10±1.29; P<0.001, and 0.67±0.23 versus 0.93±0.15; P<0.001, respectively). The correlation between RFR and FFR was moderate (r=0.54; P<0.01). Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.82 for RFR, which was not significantly higher compared with that for hyperemic MBF and coronary flow reserve (0.76; P=0.32 and 0.72; P=0.08, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive estimation of FFR by quantitative perfusion positron emission tomography by calculating RFR is feasible, yet only a trend toward a slight improvement of diagnostic accuracy compared with hyperemic MBF assessment was determined.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging is increasingly used for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Quantitative perfusion imaging allows to noninvasively calculate fractional flow reserve (FFR). This so-called relative flow reserve (RFR) is defined as the ratio of hyperemic myocardial blood flow (MBF) in a stenotic area to hyperemic MBF in a normal perfused area. The aim of this study was to assess the value of RFR in the detection of significant coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: From a clinical population of patients with suspected coronary artery disease who underwent oxygen-15-labeled water cardiac positron emission tomography and invasive coronary angiography, 92 patients with single- or 2-vessel disease were included. Intermediate lesions (diameter stenosis, 30%-90%; n=75) were interrogated by FFR. Thirty-eight (41%) vessels were deemed hemodynamically significant (>90% stenosis or FFR≤0.80). Hyperemic MBF, coronary flow reserve, and RFR were lower for vessels with a hemodynamically significant lesion (2.01±0.78 versus 2.90±1.16 mL·min(-1)·g(-1); P<0.001, 2.27±1.03 versus 3.10±1.29; P<0.001, and 0.67±0.23 versus 0.93±0.15; P<0.001, respectively). The correlation between RFR and FFR was moderate (r=0.54; P<0.01). Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.82 for RFR, which was not significantly higher compared with that for hyperemic MBF and coronary flow reserve (0.76; P=0.32 and 0.72; P=0.08, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive estimation of FFR by quantitative perfusion positron emission tomography by calculating RFR is feasible, yet only a trend toward a slight improvement of diagnostic accuracy compared with hyperemic MBF assessment was determined.
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: Dominik C Benz; Christoph Gräni; Paola Ferro; Luis Neumeier; Michael Messerli; Mathias Possner; Olivier F Clerc; Catherine Gebhard; Oliver Gaemperli; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Philipp A Kaufmann; Ronny R Buechel Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 5.952