Randomized Comparison of Clinical Effectiveness of Pharmacologic SPECT and PET MPI in Symptomatic CAD Patients

Chinese Herbal Medicines for Coronary Heart Disease: Clinical Evidence, Pharmacological Mechanisms, and the Interaction with Gut Microbiota

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a common type of cardiovascular disease (CVD) that has been on the rise in terms of both incidence and mortality worldwide, presenting a significant threat to human health. An increasing body of studies has shown that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), particularly Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs), can serve as an effective adjunctive therapy to enhance the efficacy of Western drugs in treating CHD due to their multiple targets and multiple pathways. In this article, we critically review data available on the potential therapeutic strategies of CHMs in the intervention of CHD from three perspectives: clinical evidence, pharmacological mechanisms, and the interaction with gut microbiota. We identified 20 CHMs used in clinical practice and it has been found that the total clinical effective rate of CHD patients improved on average by 17.78% with the intervention of these CHMs. Subsequently, six signaling pathways commonly used in treating CHD have been identified through an overview of potential pharmacological mechanisms of these 20 CHMs and the eight representative individual herbs selected from them. CHMs could also act on gut microbiota to intervene in CHD by modulating the composition of gut microbiota, reducing trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) levels, increasing short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), and maintaining appropriate bile acids (BAs). Thus, the therapeutic potential of CHMs for CHD is worthy of further study in view of the outcomes found in existing studies.

Comparative predictors of mortality among patients referred for stress single-photon emission computed tomography versus positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging

BACKGROUND

There is currently little information regarding the usage and comparative predictors of mortality among patients referred for single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) versus positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) within multimodality imaging laboratories.

METHODS

We compared the clinical characteristics and mortality outcomes among 15,718 patients referred for SPECT-MPI and 6202 patients referred for PET-MPI between 2008 and 2017.

RESULTS

Approximately two-thirds of MPI studies were performed using SPECT-MPI. The PET-MPI group was substantially older and included more patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD), hypertension, diabetes, and myocardial ischemia. The annualized mortality rate was also higher in the PET-MPI group, and this difference persisted after propensity matching 3615 SPECT-MPI and 3615 PET-MPI patients to have similar clinical profiles. Among the SPECT-MPI patients, the most potent predictor of mortality was exercise ability and performance, including consideration of patients' mode of stress testing and exercise duration. Among the PET-MPI patients, myocardial flow reserve (MFR) was the most potent predictor of mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In our real-world setting, PET-MPI was more commonly employed among older patients with more cardiac risk factors than SPECT-MPI patients. The most potent predictors of mortality in our SPECT and PET-MPI groups were variables exclusive to each test: exercise ability/capacity for SPECT-MPI patients and MFR for PET-MPI patients.

Economic and healthcare resource utilization assessments of PET imaging in Coronary Artery Disease diagnosis: a systematic review and discussion of opportunities for future economic evaluations

AIMS

This systematic literature review (SLR) consolidated economic and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) evidence for positron emission tomography (PET) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) to inform future economic evaluations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases from 2012-2022. Economic and HCRU studies in adults who underwent PET- or SPECT-MPI for coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnosis were eligible. A qualitative methodological assessment of existing economic evaluations, HCRU, and downstream cardiac outcomes was completed. Exploratory meta-analyses of clinical outcomes were performed.

RESULTS

The search yielded 13,439 results, with 71 records included. Economic evaluations and comparative clinical trials were limited in number and outcome types (HCRU, downstream cardiac outcomes, and diagnostic performance) assessed. No studies included all outcome types and only one economic evaluation linked diagnostic performance to HCRU. The meta-analyses of comparative studies demonstrated significantly higher rates of early- and late-invasive coronary angiography and revascularization for PET- compared to SPECT-MPI; however, the rate of repeat testing was lower with PET-MPI. The rate of acute myocardial infarction was lower, albeit non-significant with PET- vs. SPECT-MPI.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

This SLR identified economic and HCRU evaluations following PET- and SPECT-MPI for CAD diagnosis and determined that existing studies do not capture all pertinent outcome parameters or link diagnostic performance to downstream HCRU and cardiac outcomes, thus, resulting in simplified assessments of CAD burden. A limitation of this work relates to heterogeneity in study designs, patient populations, and follow-up times of existing studies. Resultingly, it was challenging to pool data in meta-analyses. Overall, this work provides a foundation for the development of comprehensive economic models for PET- and SPECT-MPI in CAD diagnosis, which should link diagnostic outcomes to HCRU and downstream cardiac events to capture the full CAD scope.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

Establishment and validation of an AI-aid method in the diagnosis of myocardial perfusion imaging

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to develop and validate an AI (artificial intelligence)-aid method in myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) to differentiate ischemia in coronary artery disease.

METHODS

We retrospectively selected 599 patients who had received gated-MPI protocol. Images were acquired using hybrid SPECT-CT systems. A training set was used to train and develop the neural network and a validation set was used to test the predictive ability of the neural network. We used a learning technique named "YOLO" to carry out the training process. We compared the predictive accuracy of AI with that of physician interpreters (beginner, inexperienced, and experienced interpreters).

RESULTS

Training performance showed that the accuracy ranged from 66.20% to 94.64%, the recall rate ranged from 76.96% to 98.76%, and the average precision ranged from 80.17% to 98.15%. In the ROC analysis of the validation set, the sensitivity range was 88.9 ~ 93.8%, the specificity range was 93.0 ~ 97.6%, and the AUC range was 94.1 ~ 96.1%. In the comparison between AI and different interpreters, AI outperformed the other interpreters (most P-value < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The AI system of our study showed excellent predictive accuracy in the diagnosis of MPI protocols, and therefore might be potentially helpful to aid radiologists in clinical practice and develop more sophisticated models.

Improved Performance of PET Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Compared to SPECT in the Evaluation of Suspected CAD

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) with single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) has played a central role in the non-invasive evaluation of patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) for decades. In this review, we discuss the key differences and advantages of positron emission tomography (PET) MPI over SPECT MPI as it relates to the diagnosis, prognosis, as well as clinical decision-making in patients with suspected CAD.

RECENT FINDINGS

Stress-induced perfusion abnormalities on SPECT help estimate presence, extent, and location of ischemia and flow-limiting obstructive CAD, help with risk stratification, and serve as a gatekeeper to identify patients who will benefit from downstream revascularization versus medical management. Some of the major limitations of SPECT include soft-tissue attenuation artifacts, underestimation of ischemia due to reliance on relative perfusion assessment, and longer protocols with higher radiation dose when performed with traditional equipment. PET MPI addresses most of these limitations and offers better quality images, higher diagnostic accuracy along with shorter protocols and lower radiation dose to the patient. A special advantage of PET scanning lies in the ability to quantify absolute myocardial blood flow and assess true extent of epicardial involvement along with identifying non-obstructive phenotypes of CAD such as diffuse atherosclerosis and microvascular dysfunction. In addition, stress acquisition at/near peak stress with PET allows us to measure left ventricular ejection fraction reserve and myocardial blood flow reserve, which help with identifying patients at a higher risk of future cardiac events and optimally select candidates for revascularization. The several technical advantages of PET MPI position as a superior method to diagnose obstructive and non-obstructive phenotypes of ischemic heart disease affecting the entirety of the coronary circulation offer incremental value for risk stratification and guide post-test management strategy for patients with suspected CAD.

Current Concepts and Future Applications of Non-Invasive Functional and Anatomical Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease

Over the last decades, significant advances have been achieved in the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). Proper non-invasive diagnosis and appropriate management based on functional information and the extension of ischemia or viability remain the cornerstone in the fight against adverse CAD events. Stress echocardiography and single photon emission computed tomography are often used for the evaluation of ischemia. Advancements in non-invasive imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have not only allowed non-invasive imaging of coronary artery lumen but also provide additional functional information. Other characteristics regarding the plaque morphology can be further evaluated with the latest modalities achieving a morpho-functional evaluation of CAD. Advances in the utilization of positron emission tomography (PET), as well as software advancements especially regarding cardiac CT, may provide additional prognostic information to a more evidence-based treatment decision. Since the armamentarium on non-invasive imaging modalities has evolved, the knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of each imaging modality should be evaluated in a case-by-case basis to achieve the best diagnosis and treatment decision. In this review article, we present the most recent advances in the noninvasive anatomical and functional evaluation of CAD.

Integration of quantitative absolute myocardial blood flow estimates from dynamic CZT-SPECT improves the detection of coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Balanced ischemia with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is difficult to diagnose with semiquantitative single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). Dynamic cardiac SPECT provides quantitative estimations of stenosis severity and ischemic burden by assessing myocardial flow reserve (MFR) and myocardial blood flow (MBF). The aim of this study was to evaluate the incremental value of dynamic SPECT in multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

Patients with suspected CAD who underwent dynamic ECG-gated dipyridamole MPI and coronary angiography within 6 months were retrospectively reviewed. The performance of summed stress, rest and difference scores (SSS, SRS, SDS), post-stress and resting MBF (MBFs, MBFr) and MFR were compared at both patient level and vessel level.

RESULTS

In 32 patients with 39 stenotic vessels, 12 had three-vessel disease (38%). Globally increased SSS and impaired MBF values were significantly associated with significant CAD at the patient level, but SDS and MFR were not. Regional increases in SSS and reductions in both MBFs and MBFr were significantly associated with stenotic vessels. The best cutoff value of global MBFs to predict CAD was 3.5 ml·g-1·min-1 (area under the curve, AUC = .84, P = .002). The best cutoff value of regional MBFs to detect significant stenosis was 3.6 ml·g-1·min-1 (AUC = .74, P < .001). However, the best possible cut-off values of MFR were not found. Sex-difference in both global and regional MBFr but MBFs was found, which might result in the non-significance in MFR.

CONCLUSIONS

This study validated a clinically available method to quantify MFR using dynamic CZT-SPECT. This method improved the detectability of multi-vessel CAD, and absolute MBFs was superior to MFR and other semiquantitative MPI parameters.

Positron Emission Tomography in Coronary Heart Disease

With advances in scanner technology, postprocessing techniques, and the development of novel positron emission tomography (PET) tracers, the applications of PET for the study of coronary heart disease have been gaining momentum in the last few years. Depending on the tracer and acquisition protocol, cardiac PET can be used to evaluate the atherosclerotic lesion (plaque imaging) and to assess its potential consequences—ischemic versus nonischemic (perfusion imaging) and viable versus scarred (viability imaging) myocardium. The scope of this review is to summarize the role of PET in coronary heart disease.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Assessing the downstream value of first-line cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) imaging using real world Medicare fee-for-service claims data

BACKGROUND

Higher imaging quality makes cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) desirable for evaluation of suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). High cost of PET imaging may be offset by reduced utilization and/or improved outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study utilized Medicare fee-for-service dataset. Study participants had no CAD diagnosis within 1 year prior to initial imaging. The PET group (PET imaging) and propensity score matched comparison group (single photon emission computed tomography or stress echocardiography) underwent index imaging between January 2014 and December 2016. Outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear models.

RESULTS

Among 144,503 study subjects, 4619 (3.2%) had PET and 139,884 (96.8%) had conventional imaging. After matching, each group had 4619 patients (mean age 74 years, 59% female). The PET group had lower radiation exposure (3.8 milliSievert less per year, 95% CI - 3.96 to - 3.64, P < .0001) and unstable coronary syndrome (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.94, P = .008). The PET group experienced more hospital admissions (IRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.15, P < .0001), more use of percutaneous coronary intervention (IRR 1.24, 95% CI 1.02-1.50, P = 0.03), while similar mortality rate (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.78-1.14, P = 0.55). The PET group had higher medical spending ($2358.2 vs $1774.3, difference = $583.9 per patient per month, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

First-line PET imaging was not associated with reduced levels of utilization and spending. Clinical outcomes were mostly similar.

Clinical experience with regadenoson SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: insights into patient characteristics, safety, and impact of results on clinical management

The Henry Ford Hospital (HFH) regadenoson (REG) registry includes patients with a variety of comorbidities allowing for the evaluation of outcomes in a large, unselected population. Using a database of electronic medical records and nuclear cardiology reports, patients aged > 18 years who underwent REG-facilitated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) testing at HFH between January 2009 and August 2012 were identified. The primary objective was to describe the clinical and demographic characteristics of patients who had undergone REG only vs REG WALK (REG + low-level exercise) SPECT. A total of 2104 patients were included in the analysis (mean age 65.3 years; 50% women; 51% African American, 43% Caucasian). For the REG only (n = 1318) and REG WALK (n = 786) cohorts, SPECT was abnormal in 37% of patients (REG only, 39%; REG WALK, 34%; P < 0.01). No differences in diagnostic modalities or interventions in 90 days after SPECT were observed. Immediate safety analysis showed no deaths 48 h after REG SPECT testing. Although they guide invasive therapy, abnormal scans do not automatically lead to invasive testing. This demonstrates the focus on initial medical management, which reflects the existing evidence of initial goal-directed medical management of stable coronary disease.

PET/CT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Acquisition and Processing: Ten Tips and Tricks to Help You Succeed

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Positron emission tomography (PET) is a leading non-invasive modality for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease due to its diagnostic accuracy and high image quality. With the latest advances in PET systems, clinicians are able to assess for myocardial ischemia and myocardial blood flow while exposing patients to extremely low radiation doses. This review will focus on the basics of acquisition and processing of hybrid PET/CT systems from appropriate patient selection to common artifacts and pitfalls.

RECENT FINDINGS

The continued development of hybrid PET/CT technology is producing scanners with exquisite sensitivity capable of generating high-quality images while exposing patients to low radiation doses. List mode acquisition is an essential component in all modern PET/CT scanners allowing simultaneous dynamic and ECG-gated imaging without lengthening scan duration. Various PET radiotracers are currently being developed but rubidium-82 and 13N-ammonia remain the most commonly used perfusion radiotracers. The development of mini 13N-ammonia cyclotrons is a promising tool that should increase access to this radiotracer. Misregistration, attenuation from extra-cardiac activity, and patient motion are the most common causes of artifacts during perfusion imaging. Techniques to automatically realign images and correct respiratory or patient motion artifacts continue to evolve. Despite the continuous evolution of PET imaging techniques, basic knowledge of scan parameters, acquisition techniques, and post processing tools remains essential to ensure high-quality images are produced and artifacts are recognized and corrected. Future research should focus on optimizing scanners to allow for shorter scan protocols and lower radiation exposure as well as continue developing techniques to minimize and correct for motion and misregistration artifacts.

Preoperative Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease in Liver Transplant Candidates: Many Unanswered Questions in Clinical Practice

Cardiovascular (CV) complications represent the first non-graft-related cause of death and the third overall cause of death among patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT). History of coronary artery disease is related to increased CV mortality following LT. Although it is of paramount importance to stratify CV risk in pre-LT patients, there is no consensus regarding the choice of the optimal non-invasive cardiac imaging test. Algorithms proposed by scientific associations include non-traditional risk factors, which are associated with increased cardiac risk profiles. Thus, an individualized pre-LT evaluation protocol should be followed. As the average age of patients undergoing LT and the number of candidates continue to rise, the “3 W” questions still remain unanswered, Who, Which and When? Who should be screened for coronary artery disease (CAD), which screening modality should be used and when should the asymptomatic waitlisted patients repeat cardiac evaluation? Prospective studies with large sample sizes are warranted to define an algorithm that can provide better risk stratification and more reliable survival prediction.

How Do PET Myocardial Blood Flow Reserve and FFR Differ?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses similarities and differences between cardiac positron emission tomography (PET), absolute myocardial blood flow, and flow reserve with invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR).

RECENT FINDINGS

Fundamentally, cardiac PET measures absolute myocardial blood flow whereas FFR provides a relative flow reserve. Cardiac PET offers a non-invasive and therefore lower risk alternative, able to image the entire left ventricle regardless of coronary anatomy. While cardiac PET can provide unique information about the subendocardium, FFR pullbacks offer unparalleled spatial resolution. Both diagnostic tests provide a highly repeatable and technically successful index of coronary hemodynamics that accounts for the amount of distal myocardial mass, albeit only indirectly with FFR. The randomized evidence base for FFR and its associated cost effectiveness remains unsurpassed. Cardiac PET and FFR have been intertwined since the very development of FFR over 25 years ago. Recent work has emphasized the ability of both techniques to guide revascularization decisions by high-quality physiology. In the past few years, cardiac PET has expanded its evidence base regarding clinical outcomes, whereas FFR has solidified its position in randomized studies as the invasive reference standard.