PURPOSE: To define the diagnostic power of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) evaluation on dynamic CZT imaging in intermediate risk patients in comparison with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and fractional flow reserve (FFR). METHODS: Twenty-three stable CAD patients underwent one-day dynamic rest-stress 99mTc-Sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging by CZT camera. Stress and rest MBF values were calculated semi-automatically using a net retention model by Leppo. Coronary flow reserve (CFR) and flow difference (FD) [MBF stress - MBF rest] were also estimated. A total of 28 vessels were functionally quantified with FFR: 19 (68%) vessels with a stenosis ≥ 70% and 9 (32%) with < 70% stenotic lesions. RESULTS: The mean global MBFs at rest and during stress were 0.36 (IQR 0.33-0.54) mL/min/g and 0.67 (IQR 0.55-0.81) mL/min/g, respectively, with an average CFR of 1.80 (IQR 1.35-2.24). Moderate correlations between stenosis severity and FFR (r = 0.45; P = .01), stress MBF (r = -0.46; P = .01) and FD (r = -0.37; P = .04) were detected. FFR abnormalities were best predicted by absolute stress MBF, CFR and FD with values of ≤ 0.54 mL/min/g (sensitivity 61.5%; specificity 93.3%), ≤ 1.48 (sensitivity 69.2%; specificity 93.3%) and ≤ 0.18 mL/min/g (sensitivity 69.2%; specificity 100%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The values of stress MBF, CFR and FD obtained through dynamic CZT acquisitions compare well with invasive FFR. The clinical use of dynamic acquisition of myocardial perfusion imaging by CZT may help cardiologist in the detection of hemodynamically significant CAD.
PURPOSE: To define the diagnostic power of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) evaluation on dynamic CZT imaging in intermediate risk patients in comparison with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and fractional flow reserve (FFR). METHODS: Twenty-three stable CAD patients underwent one-day dynamic rest-stress 99mTc-Sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging by CZT camera. Stress and rest MBF values were calculated semi-automatically using a net retention model by Leppo. Coronary flow reserve (CFR) and flow difference (FD) [MBF stress - MBF rest] were also estimated. A total of 28 vessels were functionally quantified with FFR: 19 (68%) vessels with a stenosis ≥ 70% and 9 (32%) with < 70% stenotic lesions. RESULTS: The mean global MBFs at rest and during stress were 0.36 (IQR 0.33-0.54) mL/min/g and 0.67 (IQR 0.55-0.81) mL/min/g, respectively, with an average CFR of 1.80 (IQR 1.35-2.24). Moderate correlations between stenosis severity and FFR (r = 0.45; P = .01), stress MBF (r = -0.46; P = .01) and FD (r = -0.37; P = .04) were detected. FFR abnormalities were best predicted by absolute stress MBF, CFR and FD with values of ≤ 0.54 mL/min/g (sensitivity 61.5%; specificity 93.3%), ≤ 1.48 (sensitivity 69.2%; specificity 93.3%) and ≤ 0.18 mL/min/g (sensitivity 69.2%; specificity 100%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The values of stress MBF, CFR and FD obtained through dynamic CZT acquisitions compare well with invasive FFR. The clinical use of dynamic acquisition of myocardial perfusion imaging by CZT may help cardiologist in the detection of hemodynamically significant CAD.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: R Glenn Wells; Rachel Timmins; Ran Klein; Julia Lockwood; Brian Marvin; Robert A deKemp; Lihui Wei; Terrence D Ruddy Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Milena J Henzlova; W Lane Duvall; Andrew J Einstein; Mark I Travin; Hein J Verberne Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 5.952
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
Authors: Sami A Kajander; Esa Joutsiniemi; Markku Saraste; Mikko Pietilä; Heikki Ukkonen; Antti Saraste; Hannu T Sipilä; Mika Teräs; Maija Mäki; Juhani Airaksinen; Jaakko Hartiala; Juhani Knuuti Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Danilo Neglia; Daniele Rovai; Chiara Caselli; Mikko Pietila; Anna Teresinska; Santiago Aguadé-Bruix; Maria Nazarena Pizzi; Giancarlo Todiere; Alessia Gimelli; Stephen Schroeder; Tanja Drosch; Rosa Poddighe; Giancarlo Casolo; Constantinos Anagnostopoulos; Francesca Pugliese; Francois Rouzet; Dominique Le Guludec; Francesco Cappelli; Serafina Valente; Gian Franco Gensini; Camilla Zawaideh; Selene Capitanio; Gianmario Sambuceti; Fabio Marsico; Pasquale Perrone Filardi; Covadonga Fernández-Golfín; Luis M Rincón; Frank P Graner; Michiel A de Graaf; Michael Fiechter; Julia Stehli; Oliver Gaemperli; Eliana Reyes; Sandy Nkomo; Maija Mäki; Valentina Lorenzoni; Giuseppe Turchetti; Clara Carpeggiani; Martina Marinelli; Stefano Puzzuoli; Maurizio Mangione; Paolo Marcheschi; Fabio Mariani; Daniela Giannessi; Stephan Nekolla; Massimo Lombardi; Rosa Sicari; Arthur J H A Scholte; José L Zamorano; Philipp A Kaufmann; S Richard Underwood; Juhani Knuuti Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Rene Nkoulou; Tobias A Fuchs; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Silke M Kuest; Jelena R Ghadri; Julia Stehli; Michael Fiechter; Bernhard A Herzog; Oliver Gaemperli; Ronny R Buechel; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Simona Ben-Haim; Venkatesh L Murthy; Christopher Breault; Rayjanah Allie; Arkadiusz Sitek; Nathaniel Roth; Jolene Fantony; Stephen C Moore; Mi-Ae Park; Marie Kijewski; Athar Haroon; Piotr Slomka; Kjell Erlandsson; Rafael Baavour; Yoel Zilberstien; Jamshed Bomanji; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 10.057