OBJECTIVES This study compared the performance of the quantitative flow ratio (QFR) with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial... Show moreOBJECTIVES This study compared the performance of the quantitative flow ratio (QFR) with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) for the diagnosis of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-defined coronary artery disease (CAD).BACKGROUND QFR estimates FFR solely based on cine contrast images acquired during invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Head-to-head studies comparing QFR with noninvasive MPI are lacking.METHODS A total of 208 (624 vessels) patients underwent technetium -99m tetrofosmin SPECT and [15O]H2O PET imaging before ICA in conjunction with FFR measurements. ICA was obtained without using a dedicated QFR acquisition protocol, and QFR computation was attempted in all vessels interrogated by FFR (552 vessels).RESULTS QFR computation succeeded in 286 (52%) vessels. QFR correlated well with invasive FFR overall (R = 0.79; p < 0.001) and in the subset of vessels with an intermediate (30% to 90%) diameter stenosis (R = 0.76; p < 0.001). Overall, per-vessel analysis demonstrated QFR to exhibit a superior sensitivity (70%) in comparison with SPECT (29%; p < 0.001), whereas it was similar to PET (75%; p = 1.000). Specificity of QFR (93%) was higher than PET (79%; p < 0.001) and not different from SPECT (96%; p = 1.000). As such, the accuracy of QFR (88%) was superior to both SPECT (82%; p = 0.010) and PET (78%; p = 0.004). Lastly, the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of QFR, in the overall sample (0.94) and among vessels with an intermediate lesion (0.90) was higher than SPECT (0.63 and 0.61; p < 0.001 for both) and PET (0.82; p < 0.001 and 0.77; p = 0.002), respectively.CONCLUSIONS In this head-to-head comparative study, QFR exhibited a higher diagnostic value for detecting FFRdefined significant CAD compared with perfusion imaging by SPECT or PET. (J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2020;13:1976-85) (c) 2020 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
Purpose To compare cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with [O-15]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) for quantification of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve ... Show morePurpose To compare cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with [O-15]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) for quantification of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods Fifty-nine patients with stable CAD underwent CMR and [O-15]H2O PET. The CMR imaging protocol included late gadolinium enhancement to rule out presence of scar tissue and perfusion imaging using a dual sequence, single bolus technique. Absolute MBF was determined for the three main vascular territories at rest and during vasodilator stress. Results CMR measurements of regional stress MBF and MFR showed only moderate correlation to those obtained using PET (r = 0.39; P < 0.001 for stress MBF and r = 0.36; P < 0.001 for MFR). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a significant bias of 0.2 +/- 1.0 mL/min/g for stress MBF and - 0.5 +/- 1.2 for MFR. CMR-derived stress MBF and MFR demonstrated area under the curves of respectively 0.72 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.79) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.83) and had optimal cutoff values of 2.35 mL/min/g and 2.25 for detecting abnormal myocardial perfusion, defined as [O-15]H2O PET-derived stress MBF <= 2.3 mL/min/g and MFR <= 2.5. Using these cutoff values, CMR and PET were concordant in 137 (77%) vascular territories for stress MBF and 135 (80%) vascular territories for MFR. Conclusion CMR measurements of stress MBF and MFR showed modest agreement to those obtained with [O-15]H2O PET. Nevertheless, stress MBF and MFR were concordant between CMR and [O-15]H2O PET in 77% and 80% of vascular territories, respectively. Show less
Everaars, H.; Hoeven, N.W. van der; Janssens, G.N.; Leeuwen, M.A. van; Loon, R.B. van; Schumacher, S.P.; ... ; Nijveldt, R. 2020
OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine the agreement between cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging and invasive measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in the evaluation of nonculprit... Show moreOBJECTIVES This study sought to determine the agreement between cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging and invasive measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in the evaluation of nonculprit lesions after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In addition, we investigated whether fully quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion is superior to semiquantitative and visual analysis.BACKGROUND The agreement between CMR and FFR in the evaluation of nonculprit lesions in patients with STEMI with multivessel disease is unknown.METHODS Seventy-seven patients with STEMI with at least 1 intermediate (diameter stenosis 50% to 90%) nonculprit lesion underwent CMR and invasive coronary angiography in conjunction with FFR measurements at 1 month after primary intervention. The imaging protocol included stress and rest perfusion, cine imaging, and late gadolinium enhancement. Fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and visual analysis of myocardial perfusion were compared against a reference of FFR. Hemodynamically obstructive was defined as FFR <= 0.80.RESULTS Hemodynamically obstructive nonculprit lesions were present in 31 (40%) patients. Visual analysis displayed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 0.83), with a sensitivity of 73% and a specificity of 70%. For semiquantitative analysis, the relative upslope of the stress signal intensity time curve and the relative upslope derived myocardial flow reserve had respective AUCs of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.54 to 0.77) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.59 to 0.81). Fully quantitative analysis did not augment diagnostic performance (all p > 0.05). Stress myocardial blood flow displayed an AUC of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64 to 0.85), with a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 77%. Similarly, MFR displayed an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71 to 0.90), with a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 71%.CONCLUSIONS CMR and FFR have moderate-good agreement in the evaluation of nonculprit lesions in patients with STEMI with multivessel disease. Fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and visual analysis yield similar diagnostic performance. (C) 2020 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
