Benefit of cardiac N-13 PET CFR for combined anatomical and functional diagnosis of ischemic coronary artery disease: a pilot study

Functional Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease by Myocardial Flow Reserve Versus Pressure-wire Based Assessment

Positron emission tomography (PET) permits the noninvasive quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF). Myocardial flow reserve (MFR), calculated by dividing stress MBF by rest MBF is a reliable index for the functional information of coronary artery disease. A pressure-derived physiological index, such as fractional flow reserve (FFR) is also an important measurement. Both MFR and FFR values are used to evaluate coronary physiology; however, but they are not interchangeable because each test has certain discrepancies. In this systematic review, we provide an overview of coronary physiology with PET compared to pressure-derived physiological indices.

Comparison Between 5- and 1-Year Outcomes Using Cutoff Values of Pressure Drop Coefficient and Fractional Flow Reserve for Diagnosing Coronary Artery Diseases

Background

The current pressure-based coronary diagnostic index, fractional flow reserve (FFR), has a limited efficacy in the presence of microvascular disease (MVD). To overcome the limitations of FFR, the objective is to assess the recently introduced pressure drop coefficient (CDP), a fundamental fluid dynamics-based combined pressure–flow index.

Methods

We hypothesize that CDP will result in improved clinical outcomes in comparison to FFR. To test the hypothesis, chi-square test was performed to compare the percent major adverse cardiac events (%MACE) at 5 years between (a) FFR < 0.75 and CDP > 27.9 and (b) FFR < 0.80 and CDP > 25.4 groups using a prospective cohort study. Furthermore, Kaplan–Meier survival curves were compared between the FFR and CDP groups. The results were considered statistically significant for p < 0.05. The outcomes of the CDP arm were presumptive as clinical decision was solely based on the FFR.

Results

For the complete patient group, the %MACE in the CDP > 27.9 group (10 out of 35, 29%) was lower in comparison to the FFR < 0.75 group (11 out of 20, 55%), and the difference was near significant (p = 0.05). The survival analysis showed a significantly higher survival rate (p = 0.01) in the CDP > 27.9 group (n = 35) when compared to the FFR < 0.75 group (n = 20). The results remained similar for the FFR = 0.80 cutoff. The comparison of the 5-year MACE outcomes with the 1-year outcomes for the complete patient group showed similar trends, with a higher statistical significance for a longer follow-up period of 5 years.

Conclusion

Based on the MACE and survival analysis outcomes, CDP could possibly be an alternate diagnostic index for decision-making in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

Clinical Trial Registration

www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01719016.

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of PET-derived myocardial blood flow parameters: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) by positron emission tomography provides additive diagnostic value to visual analysis of perfusion defect, diagnostic accuracy of different MBF parameters remain unclear.

METHODS

Clinical studies regarding the diagnostic accuracy of hyperemic MBF (hMBF), myocardial flow reserve (MFR) and/or relative flow reserve (RFR) were searched and systematically reviewed. On a per-vessel basis, pooled measures of the parameters' diagnostic performances were analyzed, regarding significant coronary stenosis defined by fractional flow reserve or diameter stenosis.

RESULTS

Ten studies (2,522 arteries from 1,099 patients) were finally included. Pooled sensitivity [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 0.853 (0.821-0.881) for hMBF, 0.755 (0.713-0.794) for MFR, and 0.636 (0.539-0.726) for RFR. Pooled specificity (95% CI) was 0.844 (0.827-0.860) for hMBF, 0.804 (0.784-0.824) for MFR, and 0.897 (0.860-0.926) for RFR. Pooled area under the curve ± standard error was 0.900 ± 0.020 for hMBF, 0.830 ± 0.026 for MFR, and 0.873 ± 0.048 for RFR.

CONCLUSIONS

hMBF showed the best sensitivity while RFR showed the best specificity in the diagnosis of significant coronary stenosis. MFR was less sensitive than hMBF and less specific than hMBF and RFR.

Benefit of ECG-gated rest and stress N-13 cardiac PET imaging for quantification of LVEF in ischemic patients

BACKGROUND

ECG-gated rest-stress cardiac PET can lead to simultaneous quantification of both left ventricular ejection fraction and flow impairment. In this study, our aim was to assess the benefit of rest and stress PET ejection fraction (EF) (EFp) in relation to single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) EF (EFs) and echocardiography EF (EFe). To this effect, the EFp was compared with EFs and EFe. Further, the relation between rest and stress EFp was also assessed.

METHODS

ECG-gated N-13 ammonia rest and stress PET imaging was performed in 26 patients. EFp values were obtained using gated reconstruction of the data in Flowquant. In 13 patients, EFs and EFe values were obtained through chart review. Correlation, analysis of variance, and Bland-Altman analyses were performed. P values less than 0.05 were used for statistical significance.

RESULTS

The rest and stress EFp values correlated significantly (r=0.80 and 0.71, respectively; P<0.05) with EFs values. There was moderate correlation with statistical significance (P<0.05) between the rest and stress EFp and EFe values (r=0.58 and 0.50, respectively). The mean rest and stress EFp values were not significantly different from mean EFs values. Also, the rest EFp and stress EFp values correlated well (r=0.81, P<0.05) and were not significantly different. Bland-Altman analysis showed no significant bias between the rest and stress EFp, and EFs, and EFe values.

CONCLUSION

Rest and stress EFp values obtained through an ECG-gated PET scan can be used for clinical diagnosis in place of conventional methods like SPECT and echocardiography.