Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 132–139

Quantitative evaluation improves specificity of myocardial perfusion SPECT in the assessment of functionally significant intermediate coronary artery stenoses: a comparative study with fractional flow reserve measurements

  • Ilgin Sahiner
  • Umit O. Akdemir
  • Sinan A. Kocaman
  • Asife Sahinarslan
  • Timur Timurkaynak
  • Mustafa Unlu
Original Article



Myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) is a noninvasive method commonly used for assessment of the hemodynamic significance of intermediate coronary stenoses. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement is a well-validated invasive method used for the evaluation of intermediate stenoses. We aimed to determine the association between MPS and FFR findings in intermediate degree stenoses and evaluate the added value of quantification in MPS.


Fifty-eight patients who underwent intracoronary pressure measurement in the catheterization laboratory to assess the physiological significance of intermediate (40–70 %) left anterior descending (LAD) artery lesions, and who also underwent stress myocardial perfusion SPECT either for the assessment of an intermediate stenosis or for suspected coronary artery disease were analyzed retrospectively in the study. Quantitative analysis was performed using the 4DMSPECT program, with visual assessment performed by two experienced nuclear medicine physicians blinded to the angiographic findings. Summed stress scores (SSS) and summed difference scores (SDS) in the LAD artery territory according to the 20 segment model were calculated. A summed stress score of ≥3 and an SDS of ≥2 were assumed as pathologic, indicating significance of the lesion; a cutoff value of 0.75 was used to define abnormal FFR. Both visual and quantitative assessment results were compared with FFR using Chi-square (χ²) test.


The mean time interval between two studies was 13 ± 11 days. FFR was normal in 45 and abnormal in 13 patients. Considering the FFR results as the gold standard method for assessing the significance of the lesion, the sensitivity and specificity of quantitative analysis determining the abnormal flow reserve were 85 and 84 %, respectively, while visual analysis had a sensitivity of 77 % and a specificity of 51 %. There was a good agreement between the observers (κ = 0.856). Summed stress and difference scores demonstrated moderate inverse correlations with FFR values (r = −0.542, p < 0.001 and r = −0.506, p < 0.001, respectively).


Quantitative analysis of the myocardial perfusion SPECT increases the specificity in evaluating the significance of intermediate degree coronary lesions.


Intermediate degree coronary artery stenosis Myocardial perfusion SPECT Fractional flow reserve Functional significance 


  1. 1.
    Gould KL. Coronary artery stenosis. New York: Elsevier Science; 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giesler T, Lamprecht S, Voigt JU, Ropers D, Pohle K, Ludwig J, et al. Long term follow up after deferral of revascularisation in patients with intermediate coronary stenoses and negative dobutamine stress echocardiography. Heart. 2002;88:645–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ragosta M, Bishop AH, Lipson LC, Watson DD, Gimple LW, Sarembock IJ, et al. Comparison between angiography and fractional flow reserve versus single-photon emission computed tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging for determining lesion significance in patients with multivessel coronary disease. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:896–902.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, Boersma E, Bech JW, van’t Veer M, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:2105–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bech GJ, De Bruyne B, Bonnier HJ, Bartunek J, Wijns W, Peels K, et al. Long-term follow-up after deferral of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty of intermediate stenosis on the basis of coronary pressure measurement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:841–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nahser PJ Jr, Brown RE, Oskarsson H, Winniford MD, Rossen JD. Maximal coronary flow reserve and metabolic coronary vasodilation in patients with diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 1995;91:635–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bishop AH, Samady H. Fractional flow reserve: critical review of an important physiologic adjunct to angiography. Am Heart J. 2004;147:792–802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lopez-Palop R, Saura D, Pinar E, Lozano I, Perez-Lorente F, Pico F, et al. Adequate intracoronary adenosine doses to achieve maximum hyperaemia in coronary functional studies by pressure derived fractional flow reserve: a dose response study. Heart. 2004;90:95–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hesse B, Tagil K, Cuocolo A, Anagnostopoulos C, Bardies M, Bax J, et al. EANM/ESC procedural guidelines for myocardial perfusion imaging in nuclear cardiology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:855–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berman DS, Hachamovitch R, Kiat H, Cohen I, Cabico JA, Wang FP, et al. Incremental value of prognostic testing in patients with known or suspected ischemic heart disease: a basis for optimal utilization of exercise technetium-99 m sestamibi myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography. JACC. 1995;26:639–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, et al. ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines and the Society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions. Circulation. 2011;124:e574–651.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tonino PA, Fearon WF, De Bruyne B, Oldroyd KG, Leesar MA, Ver Lee PN, et al. Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2816–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christou MA, Siontis GC, Katritsis DG, Ioannidis JP. Meta-analysis of fractional flow reserve versus quantitative coronary angiography and noninvasive imaging for evaluation of myocardial ischemia. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:450–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Costa MA, Shoemaker S, Futamatsu H, Klassen C, Angiolillo DJ, Nguyen M, et al. Quantitative magnetic resonance perfusion imaging detects anatomic and physiologic coronary artery disease as measured by coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. Am J Cardiol. 2007;50:514–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gebker R, Frick M, Jahnke C, Berger A, Schneeweis C, Manka R, et al. Value of additional myocardial perfusion imaging during dobutamine stress magnetic resonance for the assessment of intermediate coronary artery disease. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;28:89–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee CH, Tai BC, Soon CY, Low AF, Poh KK, Yeo TC, et al. New set of intravascular ultrasound-derived anatomic criteria for defining functionally significant stenoses in small coronary arteries (results from Intravascular Ultrasound Diagnostic Evaluation of Atherosclerosis in Singapore [IDEAS] study). Am J Cardiol. 2010;105:1378–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chamuleau SA, van Eck-Smit BL, Meuwissen M, Koch KT, Dijkgraaf MG, Verberne HJ, et al. Long-term prognostic value of CFVR and FFR versus perfusion scintigraphy in patients with multivessel disease. Neth Heart J. 2007;15:369–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bech GJ, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, de Muinck ED, Hoorntje JC, Escaned J, et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation. 2001;103:2928–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Legalery P, Schiele F, Seronde MF, Meneveau N, Wei H, Didier K, et al. One-year outcome of patients submitted to routine fractional flow reserve assessment to determine the need for angioplasty. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:2623–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Potvin JM, Rodes-Cabau J, Bertrand OF, Gleeton O, Nguyen CN, Barbeau G, et al. Usefulness of fractional flow reserve measurements to defer revascularization in patients with stable or unstable angina pectoris, non-ST-elevation and ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction, or atypical chest pain. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:289–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van’ t Veer M, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guner LA, Karabacak NI, Cakir T, Akdemir OU, Kocaman SA, Cengel A, et al. Comparison of diagnostic performances of three different software packages in detecting coronary artery disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:2070–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Slomka PJ, Nishina H, Berman DS, Akincioglu C, Abidov A, Friedman JD, et al. Automated quantification of myocardial perfusion SPECT using simplified normal limits. J Nucl Cardiol. 2005;12:66–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pijls NH, Sels JW. Functional measurement of coronary stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1045–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pijls NH, De Bruyne B. Coronary pressure measurement and fractional flow reserve. Heart. 1998;80:539–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blows LJ, Redwood SR. The pressure wire in practice. Heart. 2007;93:419–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hacker M, Rieber J, Schmid R, Lafougere C, Tausig A, Theisen K, et al. Comparison of Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT with fractional flow reserve in patients with intermediate coronary artery stenoses. J Nucl Cardiol. 2005;12:645–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Melikian N, De Bondt P, Tonino P, De Winter O, Wyffels E, Bartunek J, et al. Fractional flow reserve and myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with angiographic multivessel coronary artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:307–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Underwood SR, Anagnostopoulos C, Cerqueira M, Ell PJ, Flint EJ, Harbinson M, et al. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: the evidence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:261–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Barbato E, Bartunek J, Bech JW, Wijns W, et al. Intracoronary and intravenous adenosine 5′-triphosphate, adenosine, papaverine, and contrast medium to assess fractional flow reserve in humans. Circulation. 2003;107:1877–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Murtagh B, Higano S, Lennon R, Mathew V, Holmes DR Jr, Lerman A. Role of incremental doses of intracoronary adenosine for fractional flow reserve assessment. Am Heart J. 2003;146:99–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilgin Sahiner
    • 1
  • Umit O. Akdemir
    • 2
  • Sinan A. Kocaman
    • 3
  • Asife Sahinarslan
    • 3
  • Timur Timurkaynak
    • 3
  • Mustafa Unlu
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineAnkara Oncology Research and Training HospitalAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineGazi University School of MedicineAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of CardiologyGazi University School of MedicineAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations