AIMS: We aimed to evaluate whether a PET-determined longitudinal decrease in myocardial blood flow (MBF) or gradient, assumed as a more specific flow parameter for epicardial resistance, correlates with invasively measured fractional flow reserve (FFR) in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 29 patients with suspected or known CAD, myocardial perfusion and MBF in mL/g/min was determined with 13N-ammonia PET/CT during regadenoson stimulation and at rest, and corresponding myocardial flow reserve (MFR = MBF stress/MBF rest) was calculated. MBF parameters were assessed in the myocardial region with stress-related perfusion defect and with stenosis ≥50% (Region 1), without defect but with stenosis ≥50% (Region 2), or without stenosis ≥50% (Region 3). Hyperaemic MBFs were significantly lower in the mid-distal than in the mid-left ventricular myocardium in Regions 1-3 [median and IQ range: 1.57 (1.24, 1.84) vs. 1.87 (1.61, 2.00), and 1.23 (1.11, 1.86) vs. 1.89 (1.80, 1.97), and 1.78 (1.48, 2.00) vs. 1.94 (1.84, 2.05) mL/g/min, P < 0.0001]. Resulting longitudinal MBF gradient during hyperaemic flows was more pronounced in Region 2 than in Regions 1 and 3, respectively [-0.46 (-0.70, -0.10) vs. -0.17 (-0.29, -0.11) and -0.15 (-0.25, -0.09) mL/g/min, respectively, P < 0.01]. There was a significant correlation between the hyperaemic longitudinal MBF gradient and FFR (r = 0.95; P < 0.0001), while this association was less pronounced for corresponding MFR (r = 0.50; P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The observed close correlation between a longitudinal MBF gradient during hyperaemic flows and invasively measured FFR suggests the longitudinal flow gradient as an emerging non-invasive index of flow-limiting CAD. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: We aimed to evaluate whether a PET-determined longitudinal decrease in myocardial blood flow (MBF) or gradient, assumed as a more specific flow parameter for epicardial resistance, correlates with invasively measured fractional flow reserve (FFR) in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 29 patients with suspected or known CAD, myocardial perfusion and MBF in mL/g/min was determined with 13N-ammonia PET/CT during regadenoson stimulation and at rest, and corresponding myocardial flow reserve (MFR = MBF stress/MBF rest) was calculated. MBF parameters were assessed in the myocardial region with stress-related perfusion defect and with stenosis ≥50% (Region 1), without defect but with stenosis ≥50% (Region 2), or without stenosis ≥50% (Region 3). Hyperaemic MBFs were significantly lower in the mid-distal than in the mid-left ventricular myocardium in Regions 1-3 [median and IQ range: 1.57 (1.24, 1.84) vs. 1.87 (1.61, 2.00), and 1.23 (1.11, 1.86) vs. 1.89 (1.80, 1.97), and 1.78 (1.48, 2.00) vs. 1.94 (1.84, 2.05) mL/g/min, P < 0.0001]. Resulting longitudinal MBF gradient during hyperaemic flows was more pronounced in Region 2 than in Regions 1 and 3, respectively [-0.46 (-0.70, -0.10) vs. -0.17 (-0.29, -0.11) and -0.15 (-0.25, -0.09) mL/g/min, respectively, P < 0.01]. There was a significant correlation between the hyperaemic longitudinal MBF gradient and FFR (r = 0.95; P < 0.0001), while this association was less pronounced for corresponding MFR (r = 0.50; P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The observed close correlation between a longitudinal MBF gradient during hyperaemic flows and invasively measured FFR suggests the longitudinal flow gradient as an emerging non-invasive index of flow-limiting CAD. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Ibrahim Danad; Valtteri Uusitalo; Tanja Kero; Antti Saraste; Pieter G Raijmakers; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Martijn W Heymans; Sami A Kajander; Mikko Pietilä; Stefan James; Jens Sörensen; Paul Knaapen; Juhani Knuuti Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ibrahim Danad; Pieter G Raijmakers; Hendrik J Harms; Martijn W Heymans; Niels van Royen; Mark Lubberink; Ronald Boellaard; Albert C van Rossum; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Paul Knaapen Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Piotr J Slomka; Erick Alexanderson; Rodrigo Jácome; Moises Jiménez; Edgar Romero; Aloha Meave; Ludovic Le Meunier; Magnus Dalhbom; Daniel S Berman; Guido Germano; Heinrich Schelbert Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Axel Martinez-Möller; Darko Zikic; René M Botnar; Ralph A Bundschuh; William Howe; Sibylle I Ziegler; Nassir Navab; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-02-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Thomas H Schindler; Alvaro D Facta; John O Prior; Jerson Cadenas; Xiao-Li Zhang; Yanjie Li; James Sayre; Jonathan Goldin; Heinrich R Schelbert Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Y Choi; S C Huang; R A Hawkins; W G Kuhle; M Dahlbom; C K Hoh; J Czernin; M E Phelps; H R Schelbert Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Patrick Krumm; Stefanie Mangold; Sergios Gatidis; Konstantin Nikolaou; Felix Nensa; Fabian Bamberg; Christian la Fougère Journal: Jpn J Radiol Date: 2018-03-10 Impact factor: 2.374
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
Authors: Marina Piccinelli; Navdeep Dahiya; Jonathon A Nye; Russell Folks; C David Cooke; Daya Manatunga; Doyeon Hwang; Jin Chul Paeng; Sang-Geon Cho; Joo Myung Lee; Hee-Seung Bom; Bon-Kwon Koo; Anthony Yezzi; Ernest V Garcia Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2022-02-15