Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 269–297 | Cite as

Clinical Quantification of Myocardial Blood Flow Using PET: Joint Position Paper of the SNMMI Cardiovascular Council and the ASNC

  • Venkatesh L. MurthyEmail author
  • 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

Writing Group

Venkatesh L. Murthy (cochair)*

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 (cochair)‡‡

*Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO; National Cardiac PET Centre, Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; §Departments of Imaging and Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA; Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, and Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, NC; Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; #Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; **Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Mt. Sinai St. Luke’s and Mt. Sinai West Hospitals, Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai, New York, NY; ††Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; ‡‡Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; §§Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; ∥∥Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; ¶¶Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; ##Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, Morristown Medical Center, Morristown, NJ; ***Cardiac Imaging Associates, Los Angeles, CA; †††Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; ‡‡‡Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT; §§§Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; ∥∥∥Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, and Nuclear Medicine Division, Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; and ¶¶¶Division of Cardiology, Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA

Expert Content Reviewers

Andrew Einstein###

Raymond Russell****

James R. Corbett††††

SNMMI Cardiovascular Council Board of Directors, and ASNC Board of Directors

###Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, and Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY; ****Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI; and ††††Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, and Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI


Radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is among the most commonly performed diagnostic tests in cardiology. Although the diagnostic and prognostic applications of radionuclide MPI are supported by a wealth of observational and clinical trial data, its performance is limited by two fundamental drawbacks. First, conventional MPI by SPECT and PET measures relative perfusion, that is, the assessment of regional myocardial perfusion relative to the region with the highest perfusion tracer uptake. This means that a global reduction in myocardial perfusion (“balanced” reduction of flow) may remain undetected and that, in general, the extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) is underestimated, as has been demonstrated with both 201Tl- and 99mTc-labeled perfusion tracers.1, 2, 3 For example, Lima et al. found that in patients with severe 3-vessel CAD, 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT MPI showed perfusion defects in multivessel and typical 3-vessel-disease patterns in only 46% and 10% of patients, respectively.2 Similarly, it has been reported that only 56% of patients with left main CAD are identified as being at high risk by having more than 10% of the myocardium abnormal on stress SPECT MPI.4 Second, the 99mTc flow tracers available for SPECT MPI are inherently limited by a relatively low first-pass extraction fraction at high flow rates, thus limiting the precision and accuracy of these tracers for estimation of regional myocardial blood flow (MBF) during stress.5 Clinical studies have shown that even small differences in extraction fraction can result in a clinical difference in the detection and quantification of myocardial ischemia by SPECT.6,7

These drawbacks of SPECT are addressed by PET, with its ability to quantify global and regional MBF (in mL/minute/g of tissue), assess regional perfusion abnormalities with relative MPI, and assess contractile function abnormalities and chamber dimensions with gated imaging. The purpose of this document is, first, to consolidate and update technical considerations for clinical quantification of MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) from earlier documents8 and, second, to summarize and update the scientific basis for their clinical application.9,10

Technical Considerations

Perfusion Tracers

The available PET tracers for conventional MPI and quantitative MBF imaging are shown in Table 1. The most commonly used tracers are 82Rb-chloride and 13N-ammonia, with a small number of centers worldwide using 15O-water. 18F-flurpiridaz is currently under investigation, with one phase III trial completed and a second trial awaiting initiation. Because of their short half-lives, 13N-ammonia and 15O-water require an on-site cyclotron. In contrast, 18F-flurpiridaz, because of its longer isotope half-life (~2 h), can be produced at regional cyclotron or radiopharmacy facilities and distributed as a unit dose. 82Rb has a short half-life and is produced from an 82Sr/82Rb generator lasting 4–8 weeks,11,12 depending on initial activity and desired radiotracer activity. The short half-lives of 82Rb and 15O-water enable fast rest–stress imaging protocols (~20–30 minute), but count statistics and standard MPI quality can be limited by the rapid isotope decay. 82Rb also has a long positron range, but this does not limit the achievable spatial resolution in practice, because of image reconstruction post filtering and cardiorespiratory motion. The radiation effective dose (mSv/GBq) is an order of magnitude lower for the short-lived isotopes than for 18F-flurpiridaz; however, the dose absorbed by the patient can be lowered by reducing the total injected activity at the expense of longer imaging times for conventional MPI.
Table 1

Properties of radiotracers used for PET MBF quantification






Isotope production method





Isotope half-life (min)





Positron range (mm) RMS





Image resolution (mm) FWHM





Effective dose (mSv/GBq)





Peak stress/rest* extraction (%)





Peak stress/rest* retention (%)





Spillover from adjacent organs

Stomach wall

Liver and lung


Early liver

Regulatory status

FDA-approved; 2 suppliers

FDA-approved; ANDA required for onsite production

Not FDA-approved

Phase 3 trials partially completed

Typical rest dose for 3D/2D (mCi)





Typical stress dose for 3D/2D (mCi)





Protocol features

Rapid protocol

Permits exercise; delay of 4–5 half-lives between rest and stress unless different doses used

Rapid protocol; no tracer retention for routine MPI

Permits exercise; different doses for rest and stress required

RMS root mean square (standard) deviation, FWHM full width at half maximum achievable using PET scanner with 5-mm spatial resolution, FDA Food and Drug Administration, ANDA abbreviated new drug application.

*Peak stress = 3–4 mL/minute/g, rest = 0.75–1.0 mL/minute/g.

1 mCi = 37 MBq.

Exercise protocols do not allow quantification of MBF.

The physiologic properties of an ideal perfusion tracer for MBF quantification would include 100% extraction from blood to tissue, and 100% retention (no washout), resulting in a linear relationship between MBF and the measured tracer activity over a wide range. The currently available PET perfusion tracers, however, have limited (< 100%) extraction and retention, resulting in a nonlinear (but still monotonic) relationship between MBF, tracer uptake, and retention rates as illustrated in Figure 1. 15O-water and 13N-ammonia have close to 100% initial (unidirectional) extraction over a wide range of MBF values, resulting in a tracer uptake rate (K 1) that is close to the true MBF (Figure 1C). Rapid early washout reduces the tracer retention of 13N-ammonia to approximately 50%–60% at peak stress MBF values. 15O-water washes out so rapidly that there is effectively no tracer retention in cardiac tissue above the blood background level (Figure 1D). 82Rb has a substantially lower extraction fraction (~35% at peak stress) and tracer retention than does 13N-ammonia. Although only limited data are available, 18F-flurpiridaz appears to have extraction and retention values similar to or slightly higher than those of 13N-ammonia.13,14 These physiologic properties of the particular perfusion tracer have a direct bearing on the optimal choice of kinetic model for image analysis and MBF quantification, as illustrated in Figure 2. Limited spatial resolution causes spillover or blurring of uptake signals from adjacent organs—an effect that varies somewhat between tracers and is a potential concern for accurate MBF quantification (Table 1).
Figure 1

Radiotracer unidirectional extraction fractions (A) used with compartmental modeling of tracer uptake rates K 1 (C), and radiotracer retention fractions (B) used with simplified retention modeling of tracer net uptake (D). Underlying data were obtained from previous publications.14,22,221,228,229 Limited data suggest that properties of 18F-flurpiridaz are similar to those of 13N-ammonia. Shaded regions represent variability in reported values

Figure 2

Polar maps demonstrating MBF, uptake, and retention along with their relationship to traditional relative MPI in example using 13N-ammonia. Uptake of tracer is determined by local MBF. However, because most PET tracers have incomplete extraction at higher MBFs, tracer uptake in high-MBF regions may be reduced (note that intense red regions on MBF image are less intense on uptake image). Furthermore, tracer retention is usually limited in high-MBF regions. Consequently, contrast between high- and low-MBF regions is further reduced on retention images. Standard myocardial perfusion images are produced by normalizing retention images such that regions of greatest retention are scaled to 100%. This does not restore contrast between defect and normal regions. MBF quantification restores contrast and adds absolute scale (mL/minute/g)

Scanner Performance

Contemporary PET scanners operate in 3-dimensional (3D) acquisition mode, as opposed to the older 2-dimensional (2D) (or 2D/3D) systems that were constructed with interplane septa designed to reduce scatter. 3D systems generally require lower injected activity, with a concordant reduction in patient radiation effective dose. For the short-lived tracers 82Rb and 15O-water, injected activities of as high as 2220–3330 MBq (60–90 mCi) were commonly used with 2D PET systems. However, this amount of activity will cause detector saturation on 3D PET systems; therefore, the injected activity must be reduced to avoid these effects.15 Weight-based dosing may help to provide consistent image quality and accurate MBF quantification, but the maximum tolerated activity can vary greatly between 3D PET systems.15 Careful consideration should be given to optimizing injected doses to avoid detector saturation during the blood pool first-pass uptake phase while also preserving sufficient activity in the tracer retention (tissue) phase to allow high-quality images for MPI interpretation. The ultrashort half-life of 82Rb is particularly challenging in this regard (Figure 3). Importantly, detector saturation will generally result in falsely elevated MBF assessments due to underestimation of the blood input function. Newer solid-state detectors should further increase the dynamic range of 3D PET systems, reducing the need to trade off MPI quality for MBF accuracy.
Figure 3

Decay of typical 370-MBq (10 mCi) dose of 13N-ammonia (solid black line) and 1,665-MBq (45 mCi) dose of 82Rb (dash line). Because of the ultrashort half-life of 82Rb, higher activities must be administered to ensure reasonable counting rates during delayed tissue-phase imaging (blue region) for generation of gated and static images for MPI interpretation. However, this results in high counting rates during blood-pool phase (green region) and the potential for detector saturation. Actual threshold for detector saturation will vary with scanner performance

Image Acquisition and Analysis

Quantification of MBF requires accurate measurement of the total tracer activity transported by the arterial blood and delivered to the myocardium over time. Measurements of arterial isotope activity versus time (time–activity curves) are typically acquired using image regions located in the arterial blood pool (e.g., left ventricle, atrium, or aorta). As only the tracer in plasma is available for exchange with the myocardial tissues, whole-blood–to–plasma corrections may be required to account for tracer binding to plasma proteins, red blood cell uptake, hematocrit, and appearance of labeled metabolites in the blood. For example, 13N-labeled metabolites (urea, glutamine, glutamate) accumulate in the blood and account for 40%–80% of the total activity as early as 5 minute after injection of 13N-ammonia.16

With older 2D PET systems, a single static scan may be adequate for accurate integration of the blood time–activity data,17 because dead-time losses and random rates are low and change relatively slowly over time. However, with current 3D PET systems, dead-time losses and random rates are much higher and more rapidly changing during the bolus first-pass transit; therefore, dynamic imaging with reconstruction of sequential short time-frames is typically required for accurate sampling and integration of the arterial blood activity. Some standardization of image acquisition and reconstruction protocols for accurate MBF quantification has occurred, but it is not universally applied. Dynamic frame-rates typically vary from 5 to 10 s during the first-pass transit through the heart and from 1 to 5 minutes during the later tissue phase. Minimal postreconstruction smoothing should be applied on the dynamic image series. Excess filtering increases adjacent organ spillover effects and can bias the MBF measurements.

In practice, list-mode acquisition is recommended because it allows flexibility in the timing and reconstruction of dynamic images for MBF, static images for MPI, electrocardiography-gated images for left ventricular ejection fraction, and respiration-gated images for quality assurance assessment of breathing artifacts. Further discussion can be found in the “Image Acquisition and Reconstruction Parameters” section. Scatter from intense or focal activity near the edge of the field of view can also bias the 3D scatter correction, leading to artifacts.18 Therefore, when using 3D PET, it is important to flush the tracer injection line with a volume of saline high enough to clear the tracer activity out of the cephalic, axillary, and subclavian veins.

To estimate MBF from dynamic PET images, time–activity curves are fit to a mathematic model describing the tracer kinetics over time.19 Various models have been proposed and evaluated, but the two most commonly used for 82Rb and 13N-ammonia are the 1-tissue-compartment model20 and the simplified retention model.17 Both models have the same conceptual property of normalizing the late-phase myocardial activity to account for the total amount of tracer that was delivered by the arterial blood. An example analysis of a 1-tissue-compartment model is shown for a stress 13N-ammonia PET scan in Figure 2. The MBF polar map is estimated using an assumed tracer-specific unidirectional extraction fraction dependent on MBF (EF = 1 − e−PS/MBF, where PS is the permeability–surface area product) and the measured uptake rate constant (K 1/EF = MBF), as well as regional corrections for total blood volume (TBV) and partial-volume underestimation (1 − TBV) of the myocardial activity.

The simplified retention model can be considered as a special case of the 1-tissue-compartment model (neglecting the effects of tracer washout), in which case MBF must be estimated using the assumed tracer retention fraction (RF), together with the late-phase tissue activity (retention) measured after the first-pass transit (retention/RF = MBF). As shown in Figure 1, the extraction and retention fractions for 82Rb are fairly similar, whereas the extraction of 13N-ammonia is much higher (near unity) than the myocardial retention. The effects of tracer extraction, washout, and retention on image contrast in abnormally perfused myocardium (defects) are illustrated in Figure 2. A further simplification has been proposed to measure an index of stress–rest MFR using 18F-flurpiridaz SUVs only.14 SUVs are unitless and measured simply as the late-phase myocardial activity divided by the total injected dose/kg of body weight. This method still requires additional validation but could simplify the stress–rest protocols substantially by removing the need for first-pass transit imaging and tracer kinetic modeling analysis.

Under resting conditions, autoregulation of myocardial tissue perfusion occurs in response to local metabolic demands. Resting MBF has been shown to vary linearly according to the product of heart rate and systolic blood pressure.21 Adjustment of resting MBF to account for changes in the heart rate–pressure product (RPP) should be considered as part of the interpretation of stress–rest MFR values, which can otherwise appear abnormal despite adequate stress MBF. Adjusted values are computed as MBFADJ = MBFREST/RPPREST × RPPREF, where RPPREF is a reference value such as 8500 reported for a typical CAD population (discussed in detail in the “Resting MBF” section).22 Interpretation of the stress MBF together with the MFR is a complementary method to account for the confounding effects of resting hemodynamics on measured MFR.23

To ensure accurate estimates of MBF and MFR, it is critical to verify that each dynamic series is acquired and analyzed correctly, with thorough review of quality assurance information as illustrated in Figure 4. Dynamic time–activity curves must include at least one background (zero-value) frame to ensure adequate sampling of the complete arterial blood input function. Assessment and correction of patient motion between the first-pass transit phase and the late-phase myocardial retention images are essential, as this can otherwise introduce a large bias in the estimated MBF values.24 The peak height of blood pool time–activity curves at rest and stress should be comparable (or slightly lower at stress) if similar radiotracer activities are injected. If there are substantial differences, extravasation or incomplete delivery of tracer may have occurred and may result in inaccurate MBF estimates (Figure 5). The shape of the blood input function should also be standardized as much as possible (e.g., 30-s square wave), as variations in tracer injection profile have been shown to adversely affect MBF accuracy25 and test–retest repeatability, in particular when using the simplified retention model.26 Blood pool time–activity curves should also be visually examined for multiple peaks or broad peaks, which may suggest poor-quality injections due to poor-quality intravenous catheters, arm positioning, or other factors. Goodness-of-fit metrics such as residual χ 2 and coefficient of determination, R 2, should be consistently low and high, respectively. Standardization of software analysis methods has been reported for 13N-ammonia27 and 82Rb,28, 29, 30 but significant variation remains among some vendor programs. Further standardization of image acquisition and analysis methods will have the benefit of allowing reliable pooling of MBF data as part of large, multicenter clinical trials.
Figure 4

Example 82Rb stress PET study quality assurance for PET quantification of MBF, including orientation of left ventricular long axis (A), sampling of myocardium and arterial blood regions (B), motion detection, dynamic time–activity curves and kinetic modeling curve-fit (C), regional MBF (FLOW) and total blood volume (TBV) maps, as well as χ 2 and R 2 goodness-of-fit metrics (D)

Figure 5

Test-retest dynamic 82Rb PET MBF scans acquired at 3 and 13 minute after dipyridamole stress. Typical injection profile (A) is shown with single peak of blood input curve (red) at ~30 s after scan start time. Poor-quality injection profile (B) shows delayed rise and double-peak of blood input curve, suggesting partial obstruction of intravenous line during tracer administration. Tracer uptake curves (dark blue) and polar maps (activity) are similar after 3–6 min, suggesting that full 82Rb dose was eventually delivered. However, inconsistent curve shapes result in markedly different MBF estimates (3.7 vs. 2.3 mL/minute/g), as derived from blood-pool-spillover- and partial-volume–corrected tissue curves (cyan)

Key Points

  • Accurate and reproducible quantification of MBF is possible with both 13N-ammonia and 82Rb (both of which are Food and Drug Administration–approved).

  • Consistent tracer injection profiles improve the reproducibility of MBF measurements.

  • The administered dose must be adjusted to avoid detector saturation during the blood pool phase, which can be particularly challenging with 82Rb.

  • List-mode acquisition enables reconstruction of static, gated, and dynamic datasets. Dynamic datasets are used for blood flow quantification with compartmental modeling.


Planning or Protocoling

This important step optimizes image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and safety. A personalized protocol for each patient considers the clinical history, reason for the test, patient preferences, and contraindications for stress agent. Reproducibility of the stress agent is critical for quantitative MBF studies to evaluate disease progression or response to therapy and requires the same stress agent, radiotracer, and software program.

Stress Test Procedure

The choice of hyperemic stress protocol is an important consideration for measurement and interpretation of MFR. Pharmacologic stress is generally required for MBF imaging because dynamic first-pass images must be acquired with the patient on the scanner bed. Although exercise stress may be preferred in some patients because of the added prognostic value of exercise capacity and electrocardiographic changes, the measured increase in rest-to-stress MBF is generally lower with exercise than with pharmacologic stress using adenosine, regadenoson, or dipyridamole. Exercise stress also reduces uptake by and spillover from adjacent organs such as the stomach and thus could reduce a potential source of artifact from MBF measurements. The use of supine bicycle exercise MBF imaging has been reported, but some detrimental effects of patient body motion may be expected. Further, this approach may be difficult to implement with the current generation of PET/CT scanners with longer imaging gantries.

Patient preparation for pharmacologic stress with PET is the same as for 99mTc SPECT MPI.31 Patients fast for a minimum of 4 hour, avoid smoking for at least 4 hour, and avoid caffeine intake for at least 12 hour before vasodilator stress.32, 33, 34 Vasodilator stress with adenosine,35 dipyridamole,36 and regadenoson37 has been evaluated using 13N-ammonia, 82Rb-chloride, and 15O-water. After excluding contraindications, a stress agent is infused on the basis of standard protocols (Table 2). The timing of isotope injection varies for each stress agent. There is no advantage to using modified protocols such as high-dose dipyridamole or hand grip (attenuated hyperemic MBF) during dipyridamole stress and MBF imaging with PET.38 If vasodilator stress is contraindicated, dobutamine combined with atropine stress is an alternate and provides maximal hyperemia equivalent to that with dipyridamole,39, 40, 41 although there are some data indicating the contrary.42, 43, 44 Hyperemia from pharmacologic stress may be reversed for significant ischemic electrocardiography changes or symptoms about 3–4 minute after the start of imaging, without jeopardizing quantitative MBF information.
Table 2

Stress pharmaceuticals used in PET MPI


Dose and administration

Timing of radiotracer injection

Route of radiotracer administration


140 mg/kg/minute intravenous infusion for 4–6 min

Mid infusion

Two intravenous lines are preferred to prevent mid-infusion interruption of adenosine


0.56 mg/kg intravenous infusion over 4 min

3–5 minute after completion of infusion

Single intravenous line for both stress agent and radioisotope


0.4-mg rapid intravenous bolus (over 10 s)

Immediately after 10-mL saline flush*

Single intravenous line for both stress agent and radioisotope


Stepwise increase in infusion from 5 or 10 μg/kg/minute up to 40 μg/kg/minute to achieve > 85% predicted heart rate; atropine boluses may be used to augment heart rate response

Once target heart rate is achieved; continue dobutamine infusion for 1–2 minute after radiotracer injection

Single intravenous line for both stress agent and radioisotope

*One recent study has suggested that injection of 82Rb at 55 s, compared with 10 s, after injection of regadenoson resulted in greater maximal hyperemic MBF (2.33 ± 0.57 vs. 1.79 ± 0.44 mL/minute/g) and correlated better with hyperemic MBF with dipyridamole (2.27 ± 0.57 mL/minute/g).211

Imaging Protocols

Typically, rest imaging is followed by stress imaging on the same day. Stress-first or stress-only imaging is feasible, but it is not routine practice with quantitative PET. Although several studies have suggested that peak hyperemic MBF is superior to MFR,45, 46, 47 most studies have concluded that MFR is more powerful for risk stratification,48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 perhaps because of decreased variability compared with peak hyperemic MBF.54 Whether postischemic stunning affects resting MBF with stress-first imaging has not been well studied. Importantly, if regadenoson is used, reversal with 150 mg of aminophylline may not be sufficient to restore resting perfusion conditions.55 More data are needed before a transition to routine stress-only imaging for quantitative PET MBF imaging can be recommended.

Radiotracer Protocols

Table 1 lists doses of clinically used PET radiotracers for MBF imaging. The “Perfusion Tracers” section covers radiotracer properties in greater detail. Adjustment of injected activity for patient weight, body mass index, or attenuation is preferable to optimize trade-offs between the quality of delayed images and the potential for detector saturation with 3D PET. Use of automatic injectors will facilitate uniform delivery of the radiotracer and standardize the input function for MBF quantitation. Consistent tracer injection profiles may have advantages for reliable quantification of MBF,26 although additional clinical data will be helpful.25

Image Acquisition and Reconstruction Parameters

Images are acquired and reconstructed using standard vendor-specific parameters. Briefly, after low-dose CT or a radionuclide localizing scan to position the heart, a dynamic or preferably list-mode acquisition is obtained in 2D or 3D mode. List-mode acquisition provides comprehensive data for static images, gated images for left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction, and dynamic images for MBF quantitation. It is important to keep the patient positioned consistently between the transmission and emission scans. Misalignment of the attenuation CT and PET emission images, potentially exacerbated by patient and respiratory motion during hyperemic stress, may introduce moderate to severe artifacts56 in as many as 1 in 4 studies and can result in significant changes in MBF quantification.57 Camera vendors offer software to manually confirm and adjust alignment of the retention-phase PET images with the attenuation CT scan during image reconstruction. However, patient motion during the first-pass transit can produce inconsistent alignment of the dynamic image series, leading to attenuation artifacts and severe bias in MBF.24 Differences in reconstruction methods may have a substantial impact on measured MBF,58 and standardization is critical. Iterative reconstruction per manufacturer recommendations is preferred for dynamic image series. Minimal smoothing of the images is preferred for MBF quantitation.

Key Points

  • To estimate MFR, maximal hyperemia is usually induced with dipyridamole, adenosine, or regadenoson.

  • Typical imaging protocols for quantitative PET imaging involve rest imaging followed by stress imaging on the same day, although stress-only protocols may have a role.

  • Quality control of dynamic images and time–activity curves is essential and should include inspection for emission–transmission misregistration, patient motion, and evidence of detector saturation.

Preferred Nomenclature and Physiologic Reference Ranges


A variety of terms have been used in the quantitative PET literature, including coronary flow reserve (CFR), MFR, MBF reserve, and myocardial perfusion reserve. Additionally, in the invasive and echocardiography literature, coronary flow velocity reserve is used. Finally, relative quantification of increased perfusion, without formal quantification of underlying MBF at rest and stress, has been referred to as myocardial perfusion reserve index in the cardiac MRI literature and has more recently been applied to quantification of SPECT images. The use of many different terms in the literature has the potential for confusion. Going forward and for this document, the preferred nomenclature is to refer to quantitative measures at rest or stress as MBF and the ratio of stress/rest MBF as MFR. Although this value generally correlates well with invasively determined CFR,59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 PET methods do not measure volume of blood flow in the epicardial coronary arteries directly but rather blood flow in myocardial tissue. Thus, the term MFR is more appropriate. The standard units of MBF are milliliters·minute−1·gram−1, most commonly denoted as mL/minute/g.

Resting MBF

Resting MBF as measured with PET and various positron-flow radiotracers has been reported to range from 0.4 to 1.2 mL/minute/g.65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 Apart from methodologic differences in radiotracer characteristics, tracer kinetic models, and image analysis that may introduce some variations between different studies, the variability of the reported resting MBF values may be attributed in part to differences in myocardial workload and thus the myocardial oxygen demand of the left ventricle.66,67,72, 73, 74 Sex and genetic variations, including mitochondrial function, are also important determinants contributing to the variability in resting MBF values.75

MBF at rest and during some forms of stress is physiologically coupled with myocardial oxygen demand and thus correlates with indices of myocardial workload (e.g., rate–pressure product, defined as the product of systolic blood pressure and heart rate).76, 77, 78 Consequently, resting MBF is commonly higher in patients with higher arterial blood pressure or heart rate.67,70,79,80 Age-related increases in resting MBF can be explained by rate–pressure product correction of increased systolic blood pressures.67,81 Most of the reported PET-determined resting MBF values have been higher in women than in men.66,68,82,83 Although the causes of this sex difference are not completely defined, hormonal effects on coronary circulatory function in women with CAD, and sex-dependent lipid profile changes, may be important contributors.66,68,82,83 Finally, in individuals with advanced obesity, resting MBF may also be elevated as induced by a more enhanced activation of the sympathetic nervous system and the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone axis, resulting in higher resting heart rate and arterial blood pressure.70,83,84

Physiologic Ranges for MBF and MFR with 13N-Ammonia and 82Rb-Chloride

In 23 studies involving a total of 363 healthy subjects undergoing 13N-ammonia PET, the weighted mean MBF values at rest and stress were 0.71 mL/minute/g (range 0.61–1.1) and 2.58 mL/g/minute (range 1.86–4.33), respectively (Table 3). Weighted mean MFR was 3.54 (range 3.16–4.8). The corresponding values for 382 healthy subjects from 8 studies using 82Rb PET are a weighted mean resting MBF of 0.74 mL/g/minute (range 0.69–1.15), a weighted mean stress MBF of 2.86 mL/g/minute (range 2.5–3.82), and a weighted mean MFR of 4.07 (range 3.88–4.47) (Table 4). It is critical to realize that these values represent physiologic ranges derived from young, healthy volunteers without coronary risk factors. In clinical populations, which are generally older and have a substantial burden of coronary risk factors, values below these ranges may frequently be seen and may not represent obstructive epicardial CAD. Instead, modest reductions in stress MBF or MFR below these reference ranges are often due to the effects of diffuse CAD and microvascular disease. A detailed discussion of abnormal thresholds for reporting and clinical action is found in the “Interpretation and Reporting” section.
Table 3

MBF and MFR reference ranges for 13N-ammonia PET


Sample size (n)

Age (y)

Stress agent

Rest MBF (mL/minute/g)

Stress MBF (mL/minute/g)


Hutchins et al.212


24 ± 4


0.88 ± 0.17

4.17 ± 1.12

4.80 ± 1.30

Chan et al.213


35 ± 16


1.10 ± 0.20

4.33 ± 1.30

4.00 ± 1.30

Czernin et al.67


31 ± 9


0.76 ± 0.25

3.00 ± 0.80

4.1 ± 0.90

Czernin et al.38


27 ± 7



2.13 ± 0.28


Nagamachi et al.21


33 ± 15


0.62 ± 0.14

2.01 ± 0.39


Yokoyama et al.163


56 ± 10


0.70 ± 0.17

2.86 ± 1.20

4.13 ± 1.38

Böttcher et al.214


24 ± 5


0.61 ± 0.09

1.86 ± 0.27

3.16 ± 0.80

Campisi et al.215


62 ± 6


0.68 ± 0.16

2.04 ± 0.30

3.16 ± 0.85

Nitzsche et al.216


28 ± 12


0.64 ± 0.09

2.63 ± 0.75


Dayanikli et al.159


48 ± 8


0.68 ± 0.80

2.64 ± 0.39

4.27 ± 0.52

Sawada et al.73


36 ± 14


0.71 ± 0.12

2.49 ± 0.74

3.50 ± 0.69

Beanlands et al.86


27 ± 4


0.62 ± 0.09

2.51 ± 0.27

4.10 ± 0.71

Muzik et al.217


26 ± 6


0.77 ± 0.16

3.40 ± 0.57

4.60 ± 0.90

Muzik et al.88


44 ± 11


0.67 ± 0.11

2.85 ± 0.49

4.28 ± 0.65

Lortie et al.22




0.69 ± 0.09

2.71 ± 0.50

4.25 ± 0.91

DeGrado et al.218




0.76 ± 0.17

2.68 ± 0.75

3.61 ± 1.06

Tawakol et al.71




0.70 ± 0.19

3.51 ± 0.84


Schindler et al.219


37 ± 13


0.61 ± 0.12

2.04 ± 0.37


Quercioli et al.70


43 ± 11


0.71 ± 0.10

2.37 ± 0.49

3.38 ± 0.67

Valenta et al.220


38 ± 10


0.71 ± 0.13

2.29 ± 0.51

3.28 ± 0.70

Prior et al.68


42 ± 13


0.64 ± 0.12

1.98 ± 0.44

3.40 ± 1.00

Renaud et al.221


31 ± 6


0.68 ± 0.12

2.86 ± 1.14

4.15 ± 1.57

Slomka et al.27




0.85 ± 0.16

2.77 ± 0.65

3.39 ± 1.22

Weighted mean

363 (total)






NR not reported.

Table 4

MBF and MFR reference ranges for 82Rb PE


Sample size (n)

Age (y)

Stress agent

Rest MBF (mL/minute/g)

Stress MBF (mL/minute/g)


Lin et al.222




1.15 ± 0.46

2.50 ± 0.54


Lortie et al.22




0.69 ± 0.14

2.83 ± 0.81

4.25 ± 1.37

Manabe et al.223


29 ± 9

Adenosine triphosphate

0.77 ± 0.25

3.35 ± 1.37

4.47 ± 1.47

Prior et al.224


30 ± 13


1.03 ± 0.42

3.82 ± 1.21

3.88 ± 0.91

Sdringola et al225


30 ± 13


0.72 ± 0.17

2.89 ± 0.50

4.17 ± 0.80

Johnson et al.171


28 ± 5


0.70 ± 0.15

2.71 ± 0.58

4.02 ± 0.85

Germino et al.226


28 ± 6


0.92 ± 0.19

3.65 ± 0.64


Renaud et al.221


31 ± 6


0.73 ± 0.15

2.96 ± 0.89

4.32 ± 1.39

Weighted mean

382 (total)






NR not reported.

Key Points

  • Although many terms have been used, MBF and MFR are the preferred terms for describing quantitative measures of blood flow.

  • Physiologic reference ranges for rest and stress MBF and MFR vary by tracer and may be slightly higher for 82Rb than for 13N-ammonia.

Indications and Applications

CAD Diagnosis

A relationship between the severity of epicardial coronary artery stenoses and PET measures of both peak hyperemic stress MBF and MFR has been established for more than 2 decades.85 Though initially established using 15O-water, this finding was quickly replicated using 13N-ammonia86, 87, 88 and more recently using 82Rb.89,90 The application of stress MBF and MFR for improving the diagnostic accuracy of PET MPI with clinical protocols has been investigated by many groups with both 13N-ammonia47,48,88 and 82Rb.52,91 Although these studies have consistently demonstrated improved diagnostic sensitivity (case example in Figure 6), at least 2 large studies have raised concerns about potential for decreased specificity (Figure 7),52,91 possibly due to the contributions of diffuse atherosclerosis and microvascular disease to stress MBF and MFR measurements. Consequently, the positive predictive value of even severely depressed MFR (< 1.5) is only modest.52,91 Conversely, preserved MFR (> 2.0) has an excellent negative predictive value for high-risk CAD (i.e., left main and 3-vessel disease), and high-risk disease is extremely uncommon with an MFR of more than 2.552,91 (see the “Interpretation and Reporting” section 6 for a more detailed discussion).
Figure 6

Clinical utility of blood flow quantification. In this example, from 81-y-old man with hypertension and dyslipidemia, relative MPI (A) with 82Rb PET demonstrated only mild, reversible perfusion abnormality involving distribution of left anterior descending coronary artery. However, MFR was severely reduced globally at 1.11. Nearly entire heart had severely reduced MFR except for inferior and inferolateral walls, where it was only moderately reduced. Coronary angiography (B) showed severe stenosis of mid portion of left main coronary artery

Figure 7

Receiver-operator characteristic curves for detection of severe CAD using MFR. As the threshold for abnormal MFR is decreased from 3.0 to 0.5, sensitivity for high-risk CAD (2-vessel disease including proximal left anterior descending artery, 3-vessel disease, and left main coronary artery) decreases (blue line). Conversely, with lower thresholds for defining abnormal MFR, specificity progressively increases (red line). (Adapted from Naya et al.91)

Prognostic Assessment

The incremental prognostic value of PET measures of stress MBF and MFR in patients with known or suspected CAD referred for clinical stress testing has also been extensively evaluated (Table 5).46,49,50,53,92, 93, 94 Consistently, patients with more severely reduced stress MBF and MFR are at higher risk than patients with preserved values or modest reductions. An analysis of the relationship between MFR and cardiac mortality suggests an excellent prognosis for an MFR of more than 2 and a steady increase in cardiac mortality for an MFR of less than 2 (Figure 8).54 The largest of these studies has demonstrated that as many as half of intermediate-risk subjects may be reclassified on the basis of MFR, even after accounting for clinical characteristics, relative MPI interpretation, and left ventricular ejection fraction.95 Consequently, in patients at higher clinical risk, for whom even a low-risk relative assessment of MPI may be insufficiently reassuring (i.e., those likely to remain at intermediate posttest risk), referral for stress PET with quantification of MBF may be preferable as an initial test over relative MPI alone, such as with SPECT imaging.
Table 5

Clinical studies of prognostic value of quantitative PET blood flow estimates


Subjects (n)


Follow-up duration (y)

Primary endpoint


Adjusted covariates

Hazard ratio

Herzog et al.49


Suspected myocardial ischemia




Age, diabetes, smoking, abnormal perfusion (binary)

1.6 (MFR < 2.0 vs. ≥ 2.0)

Tio et al.94


Ischemic heart disease


Cardiac death


Age, sex

4.1 (per 0.5 MFR)

Slart et al.93


PET-driven revascularization


Cardiac death


Age, sex

23.6 (MFR < 1.34 vs. > 1.67); 8.3 (MFR 1.34–1.67 vs. > 1.67)

Murthy et al.50


Clinically indicated PET


Cardiac death


Age, sex, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, family history of premature CAD, tobacco use, history of CAD, body mass index, chest pain, dyspnea, early revascularization, rest LVEF, summed stress score, LVEF reserve

5.6 (MFR < 1.5 vs. > 2.0); 3.4 (MFR 1.5–2.0 vs. > 2.0)

Fukushima et al.92


Clinically indicated PET




Age, summed stress score (dichotomized > 4)

2.9 (MFR < 2.11 vs. ≥ 2.11)

Ziadi et al.53


Clinically indicated PET




History of MI, stress LVEF, summed stress score (dichotomized ≥ 4)

3.3 (MFR < 2.0 vs. > 2.0)

Farhad et al.227


Suspected myocardial ischemia




Summed stress score

0.41 per mL/minute/g stress MBF

MACE major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, nonfatal MI, late revascularization, cardiac hospitalization), LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, MI myocardial infarction.

Figure 8

Relationship between MFR and risk of cardiac death. Regardless of which 82Rb tracer kinetic model is used, similar pattern of rising risk with MFR < 2 is seen. 1:1 indicates fictitious 100% extraction (MBF = K 1), which approximates assumptions for myocardial perfusion reserve index. (Adapted from Murthy et al.54)

Treatment Guidance

At present there are no randomized data supporting the use of any stress imaging modality for selection of patients for revascularization or for guidance of medical therapy. Observational data have established a paradigm that patients with greater degrees of ischemia on relative MPI are more likely to benefit from revascularization.96 This paradigm has been conceptually extended to include MFR and stress MBF97 but has not yet been evaluated prospectively. Although observational data are limited to one single-center study with relatively small sample sizes, there is some evidence that early revascularization is associated with a more favorable prognosis only in patients with a low global MFR and that patients with a low MFR may benefit more from coronary artery bypass grafting than from percutaneous revascularization.98

Special Populations

Diabetes Mellitus

Patients with diabetes mellitus are at significantly increased risk of CAD and its complications.99 Furthermore, diabetic patients may have extensive, high-risk CAD even with low-risk relative MPI findings,100 and diabetic patients with low-risk relative MPI findings may still be at significantly elevated risk of CAD complications.101 Important contributors to these concerning findings may be increased rates of diffuse epicardial CAD and microvascular disease among diabetic patients. Consequently, the improved performance of quantitative measures with PET compared with relative MPI is likely to be of particular value. In a large series of 1172 patients with diabetes compared with 1611 patients without diabetes, incorporation of MFR into PET assessment allowed identification of the 40% of diabetic patients who were at high risk (at equivalent risk to those with clinically recognized CAD) compared with the remainder, who experienced event rates comparable to individuals without diabetes.102 Given the important limitations of relative MPI among diabetic patients, PET with quantification of blood flow is preferable to SPECT among patients with diabetes mellitus.

Chronic Kidney Disease

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among patients with moderate to severe renal dysfunction,103 and early referral for revascularization may be beneficial in patients with suitable disease.104 However, patients with underlying renal dysfunction are also at increased risk of complications after angiography and revascularization.105, 106, 107 Unfortunately, as with diabetic patients, traditional relative MPI is unable to identify truly low-risk patients.108 Two series from one center have shown that PET measures of MFR have greater prognostic value than do clinical and relative MPI parameters in patients with chronic kidney disease109 and patients requiring renal replacement therapy.110

Cardiomyopathy and Heart Failure

In many cases, relative MPI lacks sufficient negative predictive value to adequately rule out an ischemic etiology in patients with severe reductions in systolic function.4 However, patients with heart failure are also at increased risk of complications from invasive coronary angiography. Consequently, the excellent negative predictive value of preserved MFR may be of particular value in excluding severe multivessel CAD in patients with cardiomyopathy.52,91 Furthermore, in patients with both ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies, impaired MFR is associated with markedly increased rates of major adverse cardiac events and cardiac death.111 However, it is important to note that abnormalities in MFR have been identified in cardiomyopathies of numerous etiologies.112, 113, 114, 115, 116 Consequently, whereas a low MFR does not necessarily imply an ischemic etiology, ischemic cardiomyopathy is extremely unlikely with well-preserved MFR. Nonetheless, the prognostic value of MFR is likely to be important regardless of etiology.111,113,116

Heart Transplantation

Patients who have undergone heart transplantation may develop coronary allograft vasculopathy (CAV), a pathologic entity distinct from atherosclerotic CAD. In CAV, intimal fibromuscular hyperplasia and intimal–medial hyperplasia cause smooth narrowing of the coronary arteries with an attendant decrease in vasodilator capacity and MBF.117,118 Because arteries are usually smoothly narrowed, traditional noninvasive diagnostic techniques such as stress SPECT MPI and stress echocardiography may be limited compared with invasive imaging of the vessel wall using intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography.119, 120, 121, 122, 123 Smooth narrowing of all vessels may result in normal relative MPI findings or only modest distal perfusion deficits despite global reductions in perfusion and vasodilator capacity. Invasive measures of MFR have been related to adverse outcomes.124 PET measures of MBF or MFR have been shown to correlate with invasive measures of CAV125 and to identify patients at risk of developing CAV.126 Recently, a relatively large study of 140 patients with prior heart transplantation demonstrated that impaired MFR identified those at risk of developing clinical events.127 Indeed, investigational therapies for CAV have demonstrated an ability to improve PET measures of MFR.128 Of note, early after transplantation, decreases in MFR may not reflect early CAV,129,130 possibly because of resting hyperemia. In this early stage, stress MBF may have greater value. Despite this limitation, quantification of MBF in patients with prior heart transplantation has substantial well-established advantages over competing noninvasive methods of CAV diagnosis.

The Elderly

Older patients, by virtue of age alone, are at increased risk of mortality. However, among those of extremely advanced age, cancer rather than cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality. Furthermore, whereas CAD is highly prevalent, the increased risks of invasive investigation and revascularization may shift the balance in some cases toward medical therapy rather than invasive approaches. One unpublished study has demonstrated that MFR assessment with PET may be able to identify patients aged 75 and older with excellent prognosis for survival free of cardiac death.131 Further investigation is of great interest.


There is much debate in the literature132,133 over optimal strategies for evaluation of known or suspected CAD in women. An important consideration is that a sizeable proportion of symptomatic women may have no evidence of obstructive CAD but are nonetheless at increased risk of cardiac complications.134,135 In part, this may be due more to impaired vasomotor function or microvascular disease than to epicardial obstructive stenoses in women compared with men.136 PET assessment of MFR has been demonstrated to be effective in both sexes and can readily identify evidence of epicardial obstructive disease, as well as diffuse CAD and microvascular function, noninvasively.137

Chest Pain with Normal Findings on Coronary Angiography

In both men and women with CAD risk factors but without overt epicardial CAD, coronary vasomotor dysfunction is highly prevalent and can be identified with PET.137 This is likely due to the presence of diffuse disease and microvascular dysfunction and may be present even in the absence of coronary artery calcium.138 In one study of 901 patients referred for suspected CAD who had normal relative MPI results, patients with an MFR of less than 2 experienced a 5.2%/year rate of major adverse cardiac events, even with a coronary artery calcium score of zero. Consequently, assessment of MFR with PET has significant prognostic value even in patients believed to be at low risk on the basis of relative MPI.

Key Points

  • Use of stress MBF and MFR for diagnosis is complex, as diabetes, hypertension, age, smoking, and other risk factors may decrease stress MBF and MFR without focal epicardial stenosis.

  • Patients with preserved stress MBF and MFR are unlikely to have high-risk epicardial CAD.

  • Severe reductions in global MFR (< 1.5) are associated with a substantially increased risk of adverse outcomes and merit careful clinical consideration.

  • A preserved global MFR of more than 2.0 has an excellent negative predictive value for high-risk CAD (i.e., left main and 3-vessel disease).

Interpretation and Reporting

Reporting Quantitative MBF Data

One of the practical applications of measuring MBF and MFR with PET is the potential utility of these quantitative physiologic measures in improving the accuracy with which angiographic CAD is detected and its physiologic severity characterized, thereby allowing more informed decisions on referrals for cardiac catheterization and, potentially, revascularization. The decision on when and how to report MBF and MFR values in the context of MPI PET studies requires understanding of what is being measured, as well as the strengths and relative weaknesses of such physiologic parameters for clinical decision making.

The rationale for using quantitative MBF data for uncovering epicardial CAD is based on the relationship between peak hyperemic MBF and MFR and the severity of coronary lesions on coronary angiography demonstrated in experimental models of coronary stenosis139,140 and in humans with atherosclerosis.85, 86, 87, 88 The findings of human studies that have measured MBF and MFR noninvasively by PET, as well as angiographic stenosis severity, can be summarized as follows:
  • In humans, resting MBF remains relatively preserved across a wide range of coronary stenosis severity,85,86 which is largely related to the gradual autoregulatory vasodilation of resistive vessels to maintain resting myocardial perfusion in the setting of upstream stenosis. Resting MBF falls only in the presence of critical subocclusive stenosis and poorly developed collateral blood flow.

  • The activation of the compensatory autoregulatory changes described above results in a progressive loss in maximum vasodilator capacity with increasing stenosis severity, which is manifested by gradual reductions in hyperemic MBF and MFR as measured by PET.85, 86, 87

  • In general, hyperemic MBF and MFR are relatively preserved for coronary lesions with less than 70% angiographic stenosis or with preserved fractional flow reserve (FFR) (> 0.8).45,47,51,52,85, 86, 87, 88, 89,91,141,142 However, both may be reduced even in the absence of overt obstructive stenosis, especially in higher-risk subgroups (e.g., diabetes and prediabetic states,143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154 hypertension,155, 156, 157, 158 dyslipidemia,159, 160, 161, 162, 163 and chronic kidney disease109,110,164,165).

  • Hyperemic MBF and MFR are consistently reduced in lesions with greater than 70% luminal narrowing or those with abnormal FFR.45,47,51,52,85, 86, 87, 88, 89,91,141,142

  • Coronary stenosis of intermediate severity (e.g., 40%–90%) is associated with significant variability in hyperemic MBF and MFR. For any degree of luminal stenosis, the observed physiologic variability is likely multifactorial and includes the following: geometric factors of coronary lesions not accounted for by a simple measure of minimal luminal diameter, including shape, eccentricity, length, and entrance and exit angles, all of which are known to modulate coronary resistance166,167; development of collateral blood flow166,167; and presence of diffuse coronary atherosclerosis and microvascular dysfunction (combination of endothelial and smooth muscle cell dysfunction in resistive vessels, and microvascular rarefaction),168 all of which are consistent findings in autopsy and intravascular ultrasound studies of patients with CAD.169,170

Is there a physiologic threshold of hyperemic MBF or MFR that can be routinely used to accurately predict obstructive stenosis on coronary angiography? The simple answer is no. The available data from the published literature include a mix of patients with suspected or known CAD (e.g., prior myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention) and used different endpoints for defining lesion severity (e.g., visual or quantitative coronary stenosis severity, angiographic risk scores, or FFR) and methodologies for measuring MBF (e.g., 15O-water, 13N-ammonia, or 82Rb using different quantitative approaches), resulting in multiple different thresholds being proposed to improve detection of obstructive angiographic CAD. Nonetheless, there are a few areas of agreement that have potentially important practical implications for including quantitative flow data in clinical PET MPI reports:
  • A preserved global hyperemic MBF and MFR consistently reduce the probability of high-risk angiographic CAD (i.e., obstructive proximal stenosis in all 3 major coronary arteries, or left main disease). A global hyperemic MBF of more than 2 mL/minute/g and MFR of more than 2 reliably exclude the presence of high-risk angiographic CAD (negative predictive value > 95%).51,52,91

  • A severely reduced global hyperemic MBF and MFR identify patients at high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, including death. Although thresholds may vary in different labs using different software, in general an MFR of less than 1.5 should be considered a high-risk feature on MPI PET46,49,50,53,92,94,98,102 and is associated with an increased likelihood for multivessel obstructive CAD.51,52,91 In these patients, angiographic evaluation may be necessary to exclude disease that can potentially by revascularized.98

  • A severe reduction in hyperemic MBF (< 1.5 mL/minute/g) or MFR (< 1.5) in a single vascular territory in a patient with normal MPI PET results by semiquantitative visual analysis should raise the possibility of flow-limiting CAD.

It is important to understand that these thresholds may vary in different labs using different software, and consequently, this should be viewed as a guide. Although individual labs may adopt variations of these thresholds, the general principle that coronary anatomy may need to be defined in patients with severely reduced MFR remains important.

Hyperemic MBF, MFR, or Both?

Hyperemic MBF and MFR provide useful information on coronary vasodilator flow capacity and characterization of flow-limiting CAD. Both parameters also share the same limitation for differentiating predominant focal obstructive stenosis from diffuse atherosclerosis and microvascular dysfunction. For most patients, the information from these two parameters is concordant (normal or abnormal).171 However, in a minority of patients the information may be discordant. Since MFR is a ratio between hyperemic and resting MBF, unusually low or high resting MBF will affect MFR and result in discrepant findings compared with the hyperemic MBF value. For example, patients with prior myocardial infarction may show relatively preserved MFR in infarct-related territories because of low resting MBF. Conversely, patients with normal hyperemic MBF but unusually high resting MBF (e.g., women and heart transplant recipients) may show a relatively reduced MFR. Consequently, both parameters should be considered in the interpretation of the test results.

In studies that have examined the incremental value of MBF quantification for predicting obstructive coronary stenosis on angiography, both hyperemic MBF and MFR have performed similarly.45,47 This suggests that stress-only imaging may be effective in selected patients, especially those without known CAD and normal left ventricular ejection fraction in whom resting MPI may be unnecessary to assess defect reversibility.

From a prognostic perspective, MFR provides better incremental risk stratification than hyperemic MBF alone.50,53 Furthermore, patients on medical therapies that reduce resting MBF, such as β-blockers, may have reduced hyperemic MBF due to disease but may be asymptomatic because of adequate MFR and thus not be in need of intervention,10 further justifying the need to measure both resting and hyperemic MBF to derive the MFR.

Complementary Role of Coronary CT Angiography

The addition of coronary CT angiography can be quite helpful to differentiate patients with extensive obstructive CAD from those with predominantly microvascular dysfunction.172, 173, 174, 175, 176 The addition of CT angiography information can improve the specificity of PET, especially in the setting of abnormal MBF values.35

Special Considerations for Reporting MBF and MFR

MBF and MFR studies should be conducted and interpreted by experienced labs. The interpretation must consider the clinical context and the question being asked by the referring provider—for example, whether the question is specifically regarding myocardial ischemia, the hemodynamic significance of disease, microvascular disease, transplant vasculopathy, or some combination of these. The interpretation must also consider the findings of other imaging studies, including electrocardiography changes, coronary calcium score, and coronary anatomy (if CT angiography is performed), as well as high-risk features such as transient ischemic dilation, right ventricular uptake, and lack of augmentation of systolic function with stress.

The reporting physician needs to consider how the information will add value to the diagnostic information and potentially affect decision making so as not to lead to unnecessary testing or undertesting. Conditions known to be associated with diffuse atherosclerosis or microvascular dysfunction that would impair global MFR need to be considered, such as renal failure, prior bypass surgery, and global left ventricular dysfunction. As noted, conditions under which accurate measurement of MFR may not be possible, as in large regions of myocardial infarction, should also be considered. Because these conditions are often already associated with an increased risk of events, the added value of MBF and MFR measurements for prognostication may be limited under these circumstances (Table 6).
Table 6

Reporting MFR in clinical practice*

Report MFR any time MFR adds value toward diagnosis or stratification

Be cautious reporting MFR when MFR provides no diagnostic or prognostic value, might confuse management, or might lead to unnecessary tests

• Normal perfusion, high normal MFR

• Abnormal perfusion with more severely or diffusely reduced MFR than expected

• Microvascular measurements specifically requested

• Assessment of hemodynamic significance of lesion specifically requested

• History of conditions known to impair long-term microvascular function

• Chronic renal failure

• Prior coronary artery bypass grafting

• Global left ventricular dysfunction (suspected cardiomyopathy)

• Accurate MFR measurement not possible or might be misleading

• Large prior myocardial infarction

• Suspected caffeine/methylxanthine ingestion

*Adapted from Juneau et al.178

Depending on experience of lab and understanding of MBF and MFR concepts of referring provider, it may be appropriate to not report findings under these circumstances to avoid confusion and potentially unnecessary subsequent testing.

Special consideration must be made when there is no flow augmentation. Typically, there is some type of change even for severe MFR impairment, and the change is often heterogeneous; that is, some regions may decrease, suggesting steal, and some may increase. Likewise, such severe impairments are often accompanied by other findings, such as transient ischemic dilation, right ventricular uptake, electrocardiography changes, or regional ischemia on relative MPI. When these are not present, when perfusion appears normal, and when errors in stress-agent administration have been excluded—yet MFR is uniform at 1.0 or very close to 1.0—the possibility should be considered that the patient has ingested caffeine or is not responsive to vasodilator stress. The test may need to be repeated with a different stress agent such as dobutamine (Table 6).177,178

Key Points

  • Preserved stress MBF of more than 2 mL/minute/g and MFR of more than 2 reliably exclude the presence of high-risk angiographic disease (negative predictive value > 95%) and are reasonable to report when used in clinical interpretation.

  • A severely decreased global MFR (< 1.5 mL/minute/g) should be reported as a high-risk feature for adverse cardiac events but is not always due to multivessel obstructive disease. The likelihood of multivessel obstructive disease may be refined by examination of the electrocardiogram, regional perfusion, coronary calcification, and cardiac volumes and function.

  • Regional decreases in stress MBF (< 1.5 mL/minute/g) and MFR (< 1.5) in a vascular territory may indicate regional flow-limiting disease.

Physiologic Relationships Among MFR, FFR, And Relative Flow Reserve

Traditionally, treatment decisions on medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass grafting have been based on the visual interpretation of the coronary angiogram, despite extensive evidence that subjective grading of luminal stenosis correlates poorly with hemodynamic significance—particularly for coronary stenoses between 30% and 80% of luminal diameter.179, 180, 181 Quantitative noninvasive and invasive techniques are now available that go beyond standard interpretation of anatomic coronary stenosis in making this functional assessment. These include noninvasive assessment of maximum MBF and MFR with PET, as well as invasive measurement of CFR and FFR. Noninvasive estimation of FFR using CT has also recently been described.182 Although both FFR and MFR can be used to assess the functional significance of stenosis, what they actually measure, their physiologic basis, and their clinical implications are distinct.


Invasive FFR has become a well-studied and increasingly used technique providing a surrogate measure of flow limitation and lesion-level ischemia. FFR assesses large-vessel coronary stenosis and is defined as the ratio of maximal blood flow in a stenotic artery relative to maximal flow in the same artery in the theoretic absence of any stenosis (Figure 9).183, 184, 185, 186 FFR is calculated as the ratio of distal coronary pressure and aortic pressure, typically measured using an intracoronary pressure wire during adenosine-induced maximal hyperemia, based on the assumption that during maximal vasodilation, coronary resistance is negligible.
Figure 9

Comparison of physiologic basis of FFR and MFR. FFR is affected by focal stenosis and diffuse atherosclerosis of coronary macrocirculation, whereas index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) reflects disease of smaller vessels. However, because intact arteriolar microcirculation is required for action of adenosine, FFR may be falsely reassuring in setting of microvascular dysfunction. MFR and CFR integrate entire coronary circulation. (Derived from De Bruyne et al.230)

An FFR of less than 0.75 was originally shown to detect reversible ischemia, defined by noninvasive stress testing (thallium SPECT and PET, dobutamine stress echocardiography, or exercise stress testing), whereas an FFR of more than 0.8 excludes ischemia with a predictive value of over 95%.184 Randomized trials—including Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) and FAME-2, which used an FFR cutoff point of 0.8187,188—have provided evidence that the use of FFR to guide clinical decisions on coronary revascularization results in reduced cardiac events. On the basis of these findings, the use of FFR is now incorporated into guidelines on management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease.187, 188, 189

FFR, however, has multiple limitations.190 In the presence of serial stenoses, a distal lesion artificially reduces the pressure gradient across the proximal lesion, leading to an overestimation of the proximal lesion’s ratio of distal coronary pressure to aortic pressure, thus underestimating its functional significance.191,192 Conversely, the presence of a proximal lesion artificially lowers this ratio for the distal lesion. Further, FFR assumes an intact microcirculation because this is the site of action of adenosine. FFR can appear falsely normal in the presence of microvascular dysfunction or disease, since elevated pressure distal to a critical stenosis, associated with increased resistance due to a microvascular abnormality, may result in a normal pressure drop across a hemodynamically significant lesion.193,194 Further, in the presence of diffuse atherosclerosis, FFR may be abnormal even without focal stenosis.195 Finally, in the setting of excellent flow capacity, the clinical significance of a reduced FFR across a moderate lesion may be overestimated if peak flow is still sufficient to meet myocardial oxygen demand. In this circumstance, symptoms are unlikely to improve with revascularization despite the reduced FFR.

More recently, the invasively measured instantaneous wave-free ratio has been advanced as a quantitative metric—which can be measured without use of a vasodilator—of the hemodynamic significance of a lesion. Although there has been only limited exploration of the relationships between the instantaneous wave-free ratio and MFR assessed by PET,196 inconsistencies between the instantaneous wave-free ratio and FFR are common.197, 198, 199 Nonetheless, two randomized trials have demonstrated that a strategy using an instantaneous wave-free ratio of more than 0.89 to defer revascularization yielded noninferior outcomes to a strategy using an FFR of more than 0.8.200,201

Assessments of MBF and Flow Reserve

Quantification of MBF using PET, allowing assessment of peak hyperemic MBF as well as noninvasive calculation of MFR, is physiologically distinct from FFR.202 Unlike FFR, MFR evaluates the effects of abnormality over the entire coronary circulation (Figure 9). It therefore allows assessment not only of the effects of focal epicardial coronary stenosis but also of diffuse coronary atherosclerosis and microvascular dysfunction. As discussed above, an important clinical limitation of blood flow quantitation compared with FFR is that it is difficult to distinguish abnormality due to epicardial artery stenosis from that due to diffuse atherosclerosis, microcirculatory dysfunction, or both. Relative flow reserve—the ratio of stress MBF in regions subtended by stenotic arteries to stress MBF in regions subtended by nonstenotic arteries—has been proposed as one potential solution. However, as with relative assessments of stress perfusion defects by PET, computation of relative flow reserve requires an assumed or defined normal zone for comparison.

CFR can also be measured invasively on a per-territory basis at the time of cardiac catheterization, using an intracoronary wire that assesses flow velocity.203 For invasive CFR, each vessel must be assessed separately, with repeated runs of vasodilator for maximal hyperemia. Importantly, for assessments of coronary physiology during cardiac catheterization, FFR and CFR can now be measured simultaneously with combined pressure sensor– and flow sensor–tipped guidewires.204 More recently, quantitative estimates of myocardial perfusion from Doppler echocardiography205,206 and contrast echocardiography207 have emerged as having clinical value.

Discrepancies Between FFR and MFR

The different physiologic basis of FFR and MFR measurements explains how discrepancies between FFR and assessments of MBF and MFR may arise. FFR, a lesion-based index, assumes uniform endothelial function on either side of the lesion and an intact microcirculation, whereas MBF and MFR consider the entire vascular system of the heart as a totality (Figure 9). Myocardial ischemia associated with diffuse coronary atherosclerosis or microvascular disease in the absence of significant epicardial stenosis will therefore affect MFR and FFR differently.208 Of note, a current multicenter randomized clinical trial—DEFINE-Flow (Distal Evaluation of Functional Performance with Intravascular Sensors to Assess the Narrowing Effect–Combined Pressure and Doppler Flow Velocity Measurements)—is assessing whether, in the presence of an invasive CFR of more than 2 and coronary lesions with an FFR of less than 0.80, percutaneous coronary intervention can be safely deferred.209 Estimates of the functional significance of coronary stenoses by FFR and the noninvasive or invasive CFR techniques usually agree. Concordantly normal studies imply the absence of hemodynamically significant epicardial or microvascular disease. Concordantly abnormal studies imply the presence of significant epicardial stenosis, with or without additional diffuse atherosclerotic or microvascular disease. However, a study by Johnson et al., assembling all combined invasive CFR and FFR measurements throughout the literature (a total of 438 cases), reported only a modest linear correlation between CFR and FFR (r = 0.34, P < 0.001), with 30%–40% of lesions showing discordance.210 Discordance is largely explained by the mechanisms discussed above. When the discordance is that low FFR is seen in regions with normal CFR, a flow decrement that is insufficient to cause ischemia may be the most likely cause, and percutaneous coronary intervention would be unlikely to improve symptoms. The discordance of low MFR with normal FFR is most commonly due to microvascular disease in the setting of diffuse nonobstructive epicardial disease or in isolation.193,194

Thus, both FFR and MFR provide valuable physiologic information for patient management but assess different pathophysiologic processes. Knowledge of these differences is important in understanding the frequently observed discordance between these measurements. For invasive assessment, these considerations lend impetus to increasing the use of physiologic measurements and combining the results of FFR, MFR, and stenosis for a unified interpretation. For noninvasive testing, they point to the value of combining absolute quantitative and regional assessments of perfusion with anatomic assessment—using coronary artery calcification scans or angiography (either invasive or noninvasive)—in settings in which overall clinical assessment based on the physiologic approach alone is not definitive.

Key Points

  • PET MFR/invasive CFR and invasive FFR are related but are not interchangeable measures, with discordance in 30%–40% of lesions.

  • MFR and invasive CFR measure the combined hemodynamic effects of epicardial stenosis, diffuse disease, and microvascular dysfunction. FFR measures the combined hemodynamic effects of focal and diffuse atherosclerosis. Microvascular dysfunction increases coronary resistance and blunts the pressure gradient across a stenosis and may sometimes lead to falsely negative FFR readings of flow-limiting lesions. The latter may explain some of the discrepancies between FFR and MFR/CFR.

Future Challenges and Conclusions

Quantification of MBF and MFR represents a substantial advance for diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of suspected or established CAD. These methods are at the cusp of translation to clinical practice. However, further efforts are necessary to standardize measures across laboratories, radiotracers, equipment, and software. Most critically, data are needed supporting improved clinical outcomes when treatment selection is based on these measures.



Venkatesh Murthy owns stock in General Electric, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, and Cardinal Health and has received research funding from INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions and speaker honoraria from Bracco Diagnostics and Ionetix. Rob Beanlands has received research grants from General Electric, Lantheus Medical Imaging, and Jubilant Draximage and speaker honoraria from Lantheus Medical Imaging and Jubilant Draximage. Salvador Borges-Neto has received research grants, speaker honoraria, and consulting fees from General Electric. E. Gordon DePuey serves on the advisory board for Adenosine Therapeutics. Ernest Garcia receives royalties from the sale of the Emory Cardiac Toolbox. Terrence Ruddy has received research grants from General Electric HealthCare and Advanced Accelerator Applications. Piotr Slomka has received research grants from Siemens Healthcare and receives royalties from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Dan Berman receives royalties from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Edward Ficaro has an ownership interest in INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.


  1. 1.
    Bateman TM, Maddahi J, Gray RJ, et al. Diffuse slow washout of myocardial thallium-201: a new scintigraphic indicator of extensive coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1984;4:55–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lima RSL, Watson DD, Goode AR, et al. Incremental value of combined perfusion and function over perfusion alone by gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of severe three-vessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:64–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maddahi J, Garcia EV, Berman DS, Waxman A, Swan HJ, Forrester J. Improved noninvasive assessment of coronary artery disease by quantitative analysis of regional stress myocardial distribution and washout of thallium-201. Circulation. 1981;64:924–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berman DS, Kang X, Slomka PJ, et al. Underestimation of extent of ischemia by gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with left main coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:521–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Watson DD, Glover DK. Overview of tracer kinetics and cellular mechanisms of uptake. In: Beller GA, Zaret BA, editors. Clinical nuclear cardiology. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby; 2010. p. 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shanoudy H, Raggi P, Beller GA, et al. Comparison of technetium-99 m tetrofosmin and thallium-201 single-photon emission computed tomographic imaging for detection of myocardial perfusion defects in patients with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:331–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Soman P, Taillefer R, DePuey EG, Udelson JE, Lahiri A. Enhanced detection of reversible perfusion defects by Tc-99 m sestamibi compared to Tc-99 m tetrofosmin during vasodilator stress SPECT imaging in mild-to-moderate coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:458–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moody JB, Lee BC, Corbett JR, Ficaro EP, Murthy VL. Precision and accuracy of clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow by dynamic PET: a technical perspective. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:935–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murthy VL, Di Carli MF. Non-invasive quantification of coronary vascular dysfunction for diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:1060–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gould KL, Johnson NP, Bateman TM, et al. Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease: Role of coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and positron emission tomography imaging in revascularization decision-making. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1639–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    CardioGen-82 Rubidium Rb 82 Generator [package insert]. Monroe Township, NJ: Bracco Diagnostics; April 2013.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    RUBY-FILL (rubidium Rb 82 generator) [package insert]. Kirkland, Quebec, Canada: Jubilant DraxImage; November 2016.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu M, Guaraldi MT, Mistry M, et al. BMS-747158-02: a novel PET myocardial perfusion imaging agent. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:789–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sherif HM, Nekolla SG, Saraste A, et al. Simplified quantification of myocardial flow reserve with flurpiridaz F 18: validation with microspheres in a pig model. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:617–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Renaud JM, Yip K, Guimond J, et al. Characterization of 3-dimensional PET systems for accurate quantification of myocardial blood flow. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:103–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keiding S, Sørensen M, Munk OL, Bender D. Human 13N-ammonia PET studies: The importance of measuring 13N-ammonia metabolites in blood. Metab Brain Dis. 2010;25:49–56.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yoshida K, Mullani N, Gould KL. Coronary flow and flow reserve by PET simplified for clinical applications using rubidium-82 or nitrogen-13-ammonia. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1701–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Erthal L, Erthal F, Beanlands RSB, Ruddy TD, deKemp RA, Dwivedi G. False-positive stress PET-CT imaging in a patient with interstitial injection. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016. doi: Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morris ED, Endres CJ, Schmidt KC, Christian BT, Muzic RF Jr, Fisher RE. Kinetic modeling in positron emission tomography. In: Wernick MN, Aarsvold JN, editors. Emission tomography. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2004. p. 499–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    deKemp RA, Yoshinaga K, Beanlands RSB. Will 3-dimensional PET-CT enable the routine quantification of myocardial blood flow? J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:380–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nagamachi S, Czernin J, Kim AS, et al. Reproducibility of measurements of regional resting and hyperemic myocardial blood flow assessed with PET. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1626–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lortie M, Beanlands RSB, Yoshinaga K, Klein R, Dasilva JN, DeKemp RA. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1765–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johnson NP, Gould KL. Physiological basis for angina and ST-segment change: PET-verified thresholds of quantitative stress myocardial perfusion and coronary flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:990–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hunter CRRN, Klein R, Beanlands RS, deKemp RA. Patient motion effects on the quantification of regional myocardial blood flow with dynamic PET imaging. Med Phys. 2016;43:1829.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raylman RR, Caraher JM, Hutchins GD. Sampling requirements for dynamic cardiac PET studies using image-derived input functions. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:440–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Klein R, Ocneanu A, Renaud JM, Ziadi MC, Beanlands RSB, deKemp RA. Consistent tracer administration profile improves test-retest repeatability of myocardial blood flow quantification with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016. doi: Scholar
  27. 27.
    Slomka PJ, Alexanderson E, Jácome R, et al. Comparison of clinical tools for measurements of regional stress and rest myocardial blood flow assessed with 13N-ammonia PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:171–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dekemp RA, Declerck J, Klein R, et al. Multisoftware reproducibility study of stress and rest myocardial blood flow assessed with 3D dynamic PET/CT and a 1-tissue-compartment model of 82Rb kinetics. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:571–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nesterov SV, Deshayes E, Sciagrà R, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow in absolute terms using 82Rb PET imaging: the RUBY-10 study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;11:1119–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tahari AK, Lee A, Rajaram M, et al. Absolute myocardial flow quantification with 82Rb PET/CT: comparison of different software packages and methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:126–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Henzlova MJ, Duvall WL, Einstein AJ, Travin MI, Verberne HJ. ASNC imaging guidelines for SPECT nuclear cardiology procedures: stress, protocols, and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:606–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Böttcher M, Czernin J, Sun KT, Phelps ME, Schelbert HR. Effect of caffeine on myocardial blood flow at rest and during pharmacological vasodilation. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:2016–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kubo S, Tadamura E, Toyoda H, et al. Effect of caffeine intake on myocardial hyperemic flow induced by adenosine triphosphate and dipyridamole. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:730–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lapeyre AC, Goraya TY, Johnston DL, Gibbons RJ. The impact of caffeine on vasodilator stress perfusion studies. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004;11:506–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kajander S, Joutsiniemi E, Saraste M, et al. Cardiac positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging accurately detects anatomically and functionally significant coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2010;122:603–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Al-Mallah MH, Sitek A, Moore SC, Di Carli M, Dorbala S. Assessment of myocardial perfusion and function with PET and PET/CT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:498–513.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hsiao E, Ali B, Blankstein R, et al. Detection of obstructive coronary artery disease using regadenoson stress and 82Rb PET/CT myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1748–54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Czernin J, Auerbach M, Sun KT, Phelps M, Schelbert HR. Effects of modified pharmacologic stress approaches on hyperemic myocardial blood flow. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:575–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bartunek J, Wijns W, Heyndrickx GR, de Bruyne B. Effects of dobutamine on coronary stenosis physiology and morphology: comparison with intracoronary adenosine. Circulation. 1999;100:243–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Petropoulakis PN, Pavlides GS, Manginas AN, Vassilikos VS, Cokkinos DV. Intracoronary flow velocity measurements in adjacent stenotic and normal coronary arteries during incremental intravenous dobutamine stress and intracoronary adenosine injection. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 1999;48:1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tadamura E, Iida H, Matsumoto K, et al. Comparison of myocardial blood flow during dobutamine-atropine infusion with that after dipyridamole administration in normal men. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:130–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fung AY, Gallagher KP, Buda AJ. The physiologic basis of dobutamine as compared with dipyridamole stress interventions in the assessment of critical coronary stenosis. Circulation. 1987;76:943–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Li D, Dhawale P, Rubin PJ, Haacke EM, Gropler RJ. Myocardial signal response to dipyridamole and dobutamine: demonstration of the BOLD effect using a double-echo gradient-echo sequence. Magn Reson Med. 1996;36:16–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Skopicki HA, Abraham SA, Picard MH, Alpert NM, Fischman AJ, Gewirtz H. Effects of dobutamine at maximally tolerated dose on myocardial blood flow in humans with ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 1997;96:3346–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Danad I, Uusitalo V, Kero T, et al. Quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion in the detection of significant coronary artery disease: cutoff values and diagnostic accuracy of quantitative [15O]H2O PET imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1464–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Farhad H, Dunet V, Bachelard K, Allenbach G, Kaufmann PA, Prior JO. Added prognostic value of myocardial blood flow quantitation in rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;14:1203–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hajjiri MM, Leavitt MB, Zheng H, Spooner AE, Fischman AJ, Gewirtz H. Comparison of positron emission tomography measurement of adenosine-stimulated absolute myocardial blood flow versus relative myocardial tracer content for physiological assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity and location. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:751–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fiechter M, Ghadri JR, Gebhard C, et al. Diagnostic value of 13N-ammonia myocardial perfusion PET: Added value of myocardial flow reserve. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1230–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Herzog BA, Husmann L, Valenta I, et al. Long-term prognostic value of 13N-ammonia myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography added value of coronary flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:150–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, et al. Improved cardiac risk assessment with noninvasive measures of coronary flow reserve. Circulation. 2011;124:2215–24.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Parkash R, deKemp RA, Ruddy TD, et al. Potential utility of rubidium 82 PET quantification in patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004;11:440–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams K, et al. Does quantification of myocardial flow reserve using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography facilitate detection of multivessel coronary artery disease? J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:670–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams KA, et al. Impaired myocardial flow reserve on rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging predicts adverse outcomes in patients assessed for myocardial ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:740–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Murthy VL, Lee BC, Sitek A, et al. Comparison and prognostic validation of multiple methods of quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb PET. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1952–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bhave NM, Freed BH, Yodwut C, et al. Considerations when measuring myocardial perfusion reserve by cardiovascular magnetic resonance using regadenoson. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:89.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gould KL, Pan T, Loghin C, Johnson NP, Guha A, Sdringola S. Frequent diagnostic errors in cardiac PET/CT due to misregistration of CT attenuation and emission PET images: A definitive analysis of causes, consequences, and corrections. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1112–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rajaram M, Tahari AK, Lee AH, et al. Cardiac PET/CT misregistration causes significant changes in estimated myocardial blood flow. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:50–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chen GP, Branch KR, Alessio AM, et al. Effect of reconstruction algorithms on myocardial blood flow measurement with 13N-ammonia PET. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1259–65.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Peelukhana SV, Kerr H, Kolli KK, et al. Benefit of cardiac N-13 PET CFR for combined anatomical and functional diagnosis of ischemic coronary artery disease: a pilot study. Ann Nucl Med. 2014;28:746–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kaufmann PA, Namdar M, Matthew F, et al. Novel Doppler assessment of intracoronary volumetric flow reserve: validation against PET in patients with or without flow-dependent vasodilation. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1272–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Merlet P, Mazoyer B, Hittinger L, et al. Assessment of coronary reserve in man: comparison between positron emission tomography with oxygen-15-labeled water and intracoronary Doppler technique. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:1899–904.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Miller DD, Donohue TJ, Wolford TL, et al. Assessment of blood flow distal to coronary artery stenoses: correlations between myocardial positron emission tomography and poststenotic intracoronary Doppler flow reserve. Circulation. 1996;94:2447–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Shelton ME, Senneff MJ, Ludbrook PA, Sobel BE, Bergmann SR. Concordance of nutritive myocardial perfusion reserve and flow velocity reserve in conductance vessels in patients with chest pain with angiographically normal coronary arteries. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:717–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Stewart RE, Miller DD, Bowers TR, et al. PET perfusion and vasodilator function after angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:770–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Bergmann SR, Herrero P, Markham J, Weinheimer CJ, Walsh MN. Noninvasive quantitation of myocardial blood flow in human subjects with oxygen-15-labeled water and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989;14:639–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Chareonthaitawee P, Kaufmann PA, Rimoldi O, Camici PG. Heterogeneity of resting and hyperemic myocardial blood flow in healthy humans. Cardiovasc Res. 2001;50:151–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Czernin J, Müller P, Chan S, et al. Influence of age and hemodynamics on myocardial blood flow and flow reserve. Circulation. 1993;88:62–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Prior JO, Schindler TH, Facta AD, et al. Determinants of myocardial blood flow response to cold pressor testing and pharmacologic vasodilation in healthy humans. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:20–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Quercioli A, Montecucco F, Pataky Z, et al. Improvement in coronary circulatory function in morbidly obese individuals after gastric bypass-induced weight loss: relation to alterations in endocannabinoids and adipocytokines. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:2063–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Quercioli A, Pataky Z, Vincenti G, et al. Elevated endocannabinoid plasma levels are associated with coronary circulatory dysfunction in obesity. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:1369–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tawakol A, Forgione MA, Stuehlinger M, et al. Homocysteine impairs coronary microvascular dilator function in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1051–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bengel FM. Leaving relativity behind: quantitative clinical perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:749–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Sawada S, Muzik O, Beanlands RS, Wolfe E, Hutchins GD, Schwaiger M. Interobserver and interstudy variability of myocardial blood flow and flow-reserve measurements with nitrogen 13 ammonia-labeled positron emission tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 1995;2:413–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Schindler TH, Schelbert HR, Quercioli A, Dilsizian V. Cardiac PET imaging for the detection and monitoring of coronary artery disease and microvascular health. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:623–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Tawakol A, Sims K, MacRae C, et al. Myocardial flow regulation in people with mitochondrial myopathy, encephalopathy, lactic acidosis, stroke-like episodes/myoclonic epilepsy and ragged red fibers and other mitochondrial syndromes. Coron Artery Dis. 2003;14:197–205.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Krivokapich J, Czernin J, Schelbert HR. Dobutamine positron emission tomography: absolute quantitation of rest and dobutamine myocardial blood flow and correlation with cardiac work and percent diameter stenosis in patients with and without coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28:565–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Krivokapich J, Smith GT, Huang SC, et al. 13N ammonia myocardial imaging at rest and with exercise in normal volunteers: quantification of absolute myocardial perfusion with dynamic positron emission tomography. Circulation. 1989;80:1328–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Schindler TH, Nitzsche EU, Olschewski M, et al. PET-measured responses of MBF to cold pressor testing correlate with indices of coronary vasomotion on quantitative coronary angiography. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:419–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Mosher P, Ross J, McFate PA, Shaw RF. Control of coronary blood flow by an autoregulatory mechanism. Circ Res. 1964;14:250–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Schindler TH, Zhang X, Vincenti G, et al. Diagnostic value of PET-measured heterogeneity in myocardial blood flows during cold pressor testing for the identification of coronary vasomotor dysfunction. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:688–97.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Uren NG, Camici PG, Melin JA, et al. Effect of aging on myocardial perfusion reserve. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:2032–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Duvernoy CS, Rattenhuber J, Seifert-Klauss V, Bengel F, Meyer C, Schwaiger M. Myocardial blood flow and flow reserve in response to short-term cyclical hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women. J Gend Specif Med. 2001;4(21–27):47.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Duvernoy CS, Meyer C, Seifert-Klauss V, et al. Gender differences in myocardial blood flow dynamics: lipid profile and hemodynamic effects. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:463–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Motivala AA, Rose PA, Kim HM, et al. Cardiovascular risk, obesity, and myocardial blood flow in postmenopausal women. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:510–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Uren NG, Melin JA, De Bruyne B, Wijns W, Baudhuin T, Camici PG. Relation between myocardial blood flow and the severity of coronary-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1782–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Beanlands RSB, Muzik O, Melon P, et al. Noninvasive quantification of regional myocardial flow reserve in patients with coronary atherosclerosis using nitrogen-13 ammonia positron emission tomography: determination of extent of altered vascular reactivity. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:1465–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Di Carli M, Czernin J, Hoh CK, et al. Relation among stenosis severity, myocardial blood flow, and flow reserve in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1995;91:1944–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Muzik O, Duvernoy C, Beanlands RSB, et al. Assessment of diagnostic performance of quantitative flow measurements in normal subjects and patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease by means of nitrogen-13 ammonia and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:534–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Anagnostopoulos C, Almonacid A, Fakhri G, et al. Quantitative relationship between coronary vasodilator reserve assessed by 82Rb PET imaging and coronary artery stenosis severity. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1593–601.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Yoshinaga K, Katoh C, Manabe O, et al. Incremental diagnostic value of regional myocardial blood flow quantification over relative perfusion imaging with generator-produced rubidium-82 PET. Circ J. 2011;75:2628–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Naya M, Murthy VL, Taqueti VR, et al. Preserved coronary flow reserve effectively excludes high-risk coronary artery disease on angiography. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:248–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Fukushima K, Javadi MS, Higuchi T, et al. Prediction of short-term cardiovascular events using quantification of global myocardial flow reserve in patients referred for clinical 82Rb PET perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:726–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Slart RHJA, Zeebregts CJ, Hillege HL, et al. Myocardial perfusion reserve after a PET-driven revascularization procedure: a strong prognostic factor. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:873–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Tio RA, Dabeshlim A, Siebelink H-MJ, et al. Comparison between the prognostic value of left ventricular function and myocardial perfusion reserve in patients with ischemic heart disease. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:214–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Di Carli MF, Murthy VL. Cardiac PET/CT for the evaluation of known or suspected coronary artery disease. Radiographics. 2011;31:1239–54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hachamovitch R, Rozanski A, Shaw LJ, et al. Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:1012–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Gould KL, Johnson NP, Kaul S, et al. Patient selection for elective revascularization to reduce myocardial infarction and mortality: New lessons from randomized trials, coronary physiology, and statistics. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:e003099.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Taqueti VR, Hachamovitch R, Murthy VL, et al. Global coronary flow reserve is associated with adverse cardiovascular events independently of luminal angiographic severity and modifies the effect of early revascularization. Circulation. 2015;131:19–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Grundy SM, Benjamin IJ, Burke GL, et al. Diabetes and cardiovascular disease: A statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 1999;100:1134–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Rajagopalan N, Miller TD, Hodge DO, Frye RL, Gibbons RJ. Identifying high-risk asymptomatic diabetic patients who are candidates for screening stress single-photon emission computed tomography imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:43–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Shaw LJ, Iskandrian A. Prognostic value of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004;11:171–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, et al. Association between coronary vascular dysfunction and cardiac mortality in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2012;126:1858–68.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    U.S. Renal Data System. USRDS 2010 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 2010.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Charytan DM, Wallentin L, Lagerqvist B, et al. Early angiography in patients with chronic kidney disease: A collaborative systematic review. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4:1032–43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Gruberg L, Mintz GS, Mehran R, et al. The prognostic implications of further renal function deterioration within 48 h of interventional coronary procedures in patients with pre-existent chronic renal insufficiency. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1542–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Cooper WA, O’Brien SM, Thourani VH, et al. Impact of renal dysfunction on outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation. 2006;113:1063–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Shin D-H, Choi D-J, Youn T-J, et al. Comparison of contrast-induced nephrotoxicity of iodixanol and iopromide in patients with renal insufficiency undergoing coronary angiography. Am J Cardiol. 2011;108:189–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Al-Mallah MH, Hachamovitch R, Dorbala S, Di Carli MF. Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging in patients referred to stress single-photon emission computed tomography with renal dysfunction. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:429–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, et al. Coronary vascular dysfunction and prognosis in patients with chronic kidney disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:1025–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Shah NR, Charytan DM, Murthy VL, et al. Prognostic value of coronary flow reserve in patients with dialysis-dependent ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;27:1823–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Majmudar MD, Murthy VL, Shah RV, et al. Quantification of coronary flow reserve in patients with ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy and its association with clinical outcomes. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:900–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Bratis K, Child N, Terrovitis J, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction in overt diabetic cardiomyopathy. IJC Metab Endocr. 2014;5:19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Cecchi F, Olivotto I, Gistri R, Lorenzoni R, Chiriatti G, Camici PG. Coronary microvascular dysfunction and prognosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1027–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Dorbala S, Vangala D, Bruyere J, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction is related to abnormalities in myocardial structure and function in cardiac amyloidosis. JACC Heart Fail. 2014;2:358–67.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Kalliokoski RJ, Kalliokoski KK, Sundell J, et al. Impaired myocardial perfusion reserve but preserved peripheral endothelial function in patients with Fabry disease. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2005;28:563–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Neglia D, Michelassi C, Trivieri MG, et al. Prognostic role of myocardial blood flow impairment in idiopathic left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation. 2002;105:186–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Kofoed KF, Czernin J, Johnson J, et al. Effects of cardiac allograft vasculopathy on myocardial blood flow, vasodilatory capacity, and coronary vasomotion. Circulation. 1997;95:600–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Treasure CB, Vita J, Ganz P, et al. Loss of the coronary microvascular response to acetylcholine in cardiac transplant patients. Circulation. 1992;86:1156–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Spes CH, Klauss V, Mudra H, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of serial dobutamine stress echocardiography for noninvasive assessment of cardiac allograft vasculopathy: a comparison with coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound. Circulation. 1999;100:509–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Spes CH, Mudra H, Schnaack SD, et al. Dobutamine stress echocardiography for noninvasive diagnosis of cardiac allograft vasculopathy: A comparison with angiography and intravascular ultrasound. Am J Cardiol. 1996;78:168–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Thompson D, Koster MJ, Wagner RH, Heroux A, Barron JT. Single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging to detect cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;13:271–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Manrique A, Bernard M, Hitzel A, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of myocardial perfusion gated SPECT in orthotopic heart transplant recipients. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:197–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Hacker M, Hoyer HX, Uebleis C, et al. Quantitative assessment of cardiac allograft vasculopathy by real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography: a comparison with conventional echocardiographic analyses and [Tc99 m]-sestamibi SPECT. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2008;9:494–500.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Kübrich M, Petrakopoulou P, Kofler S, et al. Impact of coronary endothelial dysfunction on adverse long-term outcome after heart transplantation. Transplantation. 2008;85:1580–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Wu Y-W, Chen Y-H, Wang S-S, et al. PET assessment of myocardial perfusion reserve inversely correlates with intravascular ultrasound findings in angiographically normal cardiac transplant recipients. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:906–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Allen-Auerbach M, Schöder H, Johnson J, et al. Relationship between coronary function by positron emission tomography and temporal changes in morphology by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1999;18:211–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Mc Ardle BA, Davies RA, Chen L, et al. Prognostic value of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography in patients after heart transplant. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:930–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Jaeger BR, Bengel FM, Odaka K, et al. Changes in myocardial vasoreactivity after drastic reduction of plasma fibrinogen and cholesterol: a clinical study in long-term heart transplant survivors using positron emission tomography. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005;24:2022–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Kushwaha SS, Narula J, Narula N, et al. Pattern of changes over time in myocardial blood flow and microvascular dilator capacity in patients with normally functioning cardiac allografts. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82:1377–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Preumont N, Berkenboom G, Vachiery J, et al. Early alterations of myocardial blood flow reserve in heart transplant recipients with angiographically normal coronary arteries. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2000;19:538–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Murthy V, Naya M, Hachamovitch R, et al. Coronary vascular dysfunction and prognosis in patients age 75 and older [abstract]. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(suppl 1):22.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Mieres JH, Shaw LJ, Hendel RC, et al. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology consensus statement: Task Force on Women and Coronary Artery Disease—the role of myocardial perfusion imaging in the clinical evaluation of coronary artery disease in women [correction]. J Nucl Cardiol. 2003;10:95–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Taqueti VR, Dorbala S, Wolinsky D, et al. Myocardial perfusion imaging in women for the evaluation of stable ischemic heart disease: state-of-the-evidence and clinical recommendations. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017. doi: Scholar
  134. 134.
    Johnson BD, Shaw LJ, Buchthal SD, et al. Prognosis in women with myocardial ischemia in the absence of obstructive coronary disease: Results from the National Institutes of Health-National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-Sponsored Women’s Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE). Circulation. 2004;109:2993–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Pepine CJ, Anderson RD, Sharaf BL, et al. Coronary microvascular reactivity to adenosine predicts adverse outcome in women evaluated for suspected ischemia: Results from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute WISE (Women’s Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2825–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Taqueti VR, Shaw LJ, Cook NR, et al. Excess cardiovascular risk in women relative to men referred for coronary angiography is associated with severely impaired coronary flow reserve, not obstructive disease. Circulation. 2017;135:566–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Murthy VL, Naya M, Taqueti VR, et al. Effects of sex on coronary microvascular dysfunction and cardiac outcomes. Circulation. 2014;129:2518–27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Naya M, Murthy VL, Foster CR, et al. Prognostic interplay of coronary artery calcification and underlying vascular dysfunction in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:2098–106.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Gould KL, Lipscomb K, Hamilton GW. Physiologic basis for assessing critical coronary stenosis: Instantaneous flow response and regional distribution during coronary hyperemia as measures of coronary flow reserve. Am J Cardiol. 1974;33:87–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Gould KL, Lipscomb K. Effects of coronary stenoses on coronary flow reserve and resistance. Am J Cardiol. 1974;34:48–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Fiechter M, Gebhard C, Ghadri JR, et al. Myocardial perfusion imaging with 13N-ammonia PET is a strong predictor for outcome. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167:1023–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Morton G, Chiribiri A, Ishida M, et al. Quantification of absolute myocardial perfusion in patients with coronary artery disease: Comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1546–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Di Carli MF, Charytan D, McMahon GT, Ganz P, Dorbala S, Schelbert HR. Coronary circulatory function in patients with the metabolic syndrome. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1369–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Di Carli MF, Janisse J, Ager J, Grunberger G. Role of chronic hyperglycemia in the pathogenesis of coronary microvascular dysfunction in diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:1387–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Di Carli MF, Bianco-Batlles D, Landa ME, et al. Effects of autonomic neuropathy on coronary blood flow in patients with diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 1999;100:813–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Kaufmann PA, Gnecchi-Ruscone T, Schäfers KP, Lüscher TF, Camici PG. Low density lipoprotein cholesterol and coronary microvascular dysfunction in hypercholesterolemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:103–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Pitkänen O-P, Nuutila P, Raitakari OT, et al. Coronary flow reserve is reduced in young men with IDDM. Diabetes. 1998;47:248–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Prior JO, Quiñones MJ, Hernandez-Pampaloni M, et al. Coronary circulatory dysfunction in insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2005;111:2291–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Quiñones MJ, Hernandez-Pampaloni M, Schelbert H, et al. Coronary vasomotor abnormalities in insulin-resistant individuals. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:700–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Rana O, Byrne CD, Kerr D, et al. Acute hypoglycemia decreases myocardial blood flow reserve in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and in healthy humans. Circulation. 2011;124:1548–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    von Scholten BJ, Hasbak P, Christensen TE, et al. Cardiac 82Rb PET/CT for fast and non-invasive assessment of microvascular function and structure in asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2016;59:371–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Valenta I, Dilsizian V, Quercioli A, Schelbert H, Schindler T. The influence of insulin resistance, obesity, and diabetes mellitus on vascular tone and myocardial blood flow. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2012;14:217–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Yokoyama I, Ohtake T, Momomura S, et al. Hyperglycemia rather than insulin resistance is related to reduced coronary flow reserve in NIDDM. Diabetes. 1998;47:119–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Yokoyama I, Momomura S, Ohtake T, et al. Reduced myocardial flow reserve in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;30:1472–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Alexánderson E, Jácome R, Jiménez-Santos M, et al. Evaluation of the endothelial function in hypertensive patients with 13N-ammonia PET. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:979–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Hamasaki S, Al Suwaidi J, Higano ST, Miyauchi K, Holmes DR Jr, Lerman A. Attenuated coronary flow reserve and vascular remodeling in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:1654–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Houghton JL, Frank MJ, Carr AA, von Dohlen TW, Prisant LM. Relations among impaired coronary flow reserve, left ventricular hypertrophy and thallium perfusion defects in hypertensive patients without obstructive coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;15:43–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Laine H, Raitakari OT, Niinikoski H, et al. Early impairment of coronary flow reserve in young men with borderline hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:147–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Dayanikli F, Grambow D, Muzik O, Mosca L, Rubenfire M, Schwaiger M. Early detection of abnormal coronary flow reserve in asymptomatic men at high risk for coronary artery disease using positron emission tomography. Circulation. 1994;90:808–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Yokoyama I, Ohtake T, Momomura S, et al. Impaired myocardial vasodilation during hyperemic stress with dipyridamole in hypertriglyceridemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:1568–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Yokoyama I, Ohtake T, Momomura S, et al. Altered myocardial vasodilatation in patients with hypertriglyceridemia in anatomically normal coronary arteries. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1998;18:294–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Yokoyama I, Ohtake T, Momomura S, Nishikawa J, Sasaki Y, Omata M. Reduced coronary flow reserve in hypercholesterolemic patients without overt coronary stenosis. Circulation. 1996;94:3232–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Yokoyama I, Murakami T, Ohtake T, et al. Reduced coronary flow reserve in familial hypercholesterolemia. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1937–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Bozbas H, Pirat B, Demirtas S, et al. Evaluation of coronary microvascular function in patients with end-stage renal disease, and renal allograft recipients. Atherosclerosis. 2009;202:498–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Charytan DM, Shelbert HR, Di Carli MF. Coronary microvascular function in early chronic kidney disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:663–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Goldstein RA, Kirkeeide RL, Demer LL, et al. Relation between geometric dimensions of coronary artery stenoses and myocardial perfusion reserve in man. J Clin Invest. 1987;79:1473–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Kirkeeide RL, Gould KL, Parsel L. Assessment of coronary stenoses by myocardial perfusion imaging during pharmacologic coronary vasodilation. VII. Validation of coronary flow reserve as a single integrated functional measure of stenosis severity reflecting all its geometric dimensions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986;7:103–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Gould KL, Nakagawa Y, Nakagawa K, et al. Frequency and clinical implications of fluid dynamically significant diffuse coronary artery disease manifest as graded, longitudinal, base-to-apex myocardial perfusion abnormalities by noninvasive positron emission tomography. Circulation. 2000;101:1931–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Arnett EN, Isner JM, Redwood DR, et al. Coronary artery narrowing in coronary heart disease: Comparison of cineangiographic and necropsy findings. Ann Intern Med. 1979;91:350–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Nicholls SJ, Tuzcu EM, Crowe T, et al. Relationship between cardiovascular risk factors and atherosclerotic disease burden measured by intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1967–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Johnson NP, Gould KL. Integrating noninvasive absolute flow, coronary flow reserve, and ischemic thresholds into a comprehensive map of physiological severity. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:430–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Naya M, Murthy VL, Blankstein R, et al. Quantitative relationship between the extent and morphology of coronary atherosclerotic plaque and downstream myocardial perfusion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1807–16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Dey D, Diaz Zamudio M, Schuhbaeck A, et al. Relationship between quantitative adverse plaque features from coronary computed tomography angiography and downstream impaired myocardial flow reserve by 13N-ammonia positron emission tomography: a pilot study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:e003255.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Appelman YE, et al. Hybrid imaging using quantitative H215O PET and CT-based coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:55–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Liga R, Marini C, Coceani M, et al. Structural abnormalities of the coronary arterial wall—in addition to luminal narrowing—affect myocardial blood flow reserve. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1704–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Kim H-S, Cho S-G, Kim JH, Bom H-S. Indirect radionuclide coronary angiography to evaluate gradients of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve through coronary stenosis using N-13 ammonia PET/CT. Chonnam Med J. 2013;49:69–74.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Bateman TM, Gould KL, Carli MFD. Proceedings of the Cardiac PET Summit, 12 May 2014, Baltimore, MD: 3: Quantification of myocardial blood flow. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:571–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Juneau D, Erthal F, Ohira H, et al. Clinical PET myocardial perfusion imaging and flow quantification. Cardiol Clin. 2016;34:69–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Topol EJ, Nissen SE. Our preoccupation with coronary luminology: The dissociation between clinical and angiographic findings in ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 1995;92:2333–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    Meijboom WB, Van Mieghem CAG, van Pelt N, et al. Comprehensive assessment of coronary artery stenoses: Computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional coronary angiography and correlation with fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:636–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Toth G, Hamilos M, Pyxaras S, et al. Evolving concepts of angiogram: fractional flow reserve discordances in 4000 coronary stenoses. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2831–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Min JK, Taylor CA, Achenbach S, et al. Noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary CT angiography: clinical data and scientific principles. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:1209–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    Pijls NH, Van Son JA, Kirkeeide RL, De Bruyne B, Gould KL. Experimental basis of determining maximum coronary, myocardial, and collateral blood flow by pressure measurements for assessing functional stenosis severity before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1993;87:1354–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Pijls NHJ, de Bruyne B, Peels K, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1703–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    De Bruyne B, Paulus WJ, Vantrimpont PJ, Sys SU, Heyndrickx GR, Pijls NHJ. Transstenotic coronary pressure gradient measurement in humans: In vitro and in vivo evaluation of a new pressure monitoring angioplasty guide wire. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22:119–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    De Bruyne B, Baudhuin T, Melin JA, et al. Coronary flow reserve calculated from pressure measurements in humans: Validation with positron emission tomography. Circulation. 1994;89:1013–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls N. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve–guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:991–1001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Pijls NHJ, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, 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
  190. 190.
    van de Hoef TP, Siebes M, Spaan JA, Piek JJ. Fundamentals in clinical coronary physiology: Why coronary flow is more important than coronary pressure. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:3312–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    Blows LJ, Redwood SR. The pressure wire in practice. Heart. 2007;93:419–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. 192.
    Plein S, Motwani M. Fractional flow reserve as the reference standard for myocardial perfusion studies: fool’s gold? Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;14:1211–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. 193.
    van de Hoef TP, Bax M, Damman P, et al. Impaired coronary autoregulation is associated with long-term fatal events in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:329–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. 194.
    van de Hoef TP, van Lavieren MA, Damman P, et al. Physiological basis and long-term clinical outcome of discordance between fractional flow reserve and coronary flow velocity reserve in coronary stenoses of intermediate severity. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:301–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. 195.
    De Bruyne B, Hersbach F, Pijls NHJ, et al. Abnormal epicardial coronary resistance in patients with diffuse atherosclerosis but “normal” coronary angiography. Circulation. 2001;104:2401–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. 196.
    Hwang D, Jeon K-H, Lee JM, et al. Diagnostic performance of resting and hyperemic invasive physiological indices to define myocardial ischemia: Validation with 13N-ammonia positron emission tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:751–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. 197.
    Hennigan B, Oldroyd KG, Berry C, et al. Discordance between resting and hyperemic indices of coronary stenosis severity: The VERIFY 2 study (a comparative study of resting coronary pressure gradient, instantaneous wave-free ratio and fractional flow reserve in an unselected population referred for invasive angiography). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e004016.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. 198.
    Johnson NP, Kirkeeide RL, Asrress KN, et al. Does the instantaneous wave-free ratio approximate the fractional flow reserve? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1428–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. 199.
    Jeremias A, Maehara A, Généreux P, et al. Multicenter core laboratory comparison of the instantaneous wave-free ratio and resting Pd/Pa with fractional flow reserve: The RESOLVE study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1253–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. 200.
    Götberg M, Christiansen EH, Gudmundsdottir IJ, et al. Instantaneous wave-free ratio versus fractional flow reserve to guide PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1813–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. 201.
    Davies JE, Sen S, Dehbi H-M, et al. Use of the instantaneous wave-free ratio or fractional flow reserve in PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1824–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. 202.
    Dilsizian V, Bacharach SL, Beanlands RS, et al. ASNC imaging guidelines/SNMMI procedure standard for positron emission tomography (PET) nuclear cardiology procedures. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:1187–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. 203.
    Barbato E, Aarnoudse W, Aengevaeren WR, et al. Validation of coronary flow reserve measurements by thermodilution in clinical practice. Eur Heart J. 2004;25:219–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. 204.
    Escaned J, Echavarría-Pinto M. Moving beyond coronary stenosis: Has the time arrived to address important physiological questions not answered by fractional flow reserve alone? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:282–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. 205.
    Wada T, Hirata K, Shiono Y, et al. Coronary flow velocity reserve in three major coronary arteries by transthoracic echocardiography for the functional assessment of coronary artery disease: A comparison with fractional flow reserve. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;15:399–408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. 206.
    Gaibazzi N, Rigo F, Lorenzoni V, et al. Comparative prediction of cardiac events by wall motion, wall motion plus coronary flow reserve, or myocardial perfusion analysis: A multicenter study of contrast stress echocardiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:1–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. 207.
    Wu J, Barton D, Xie F, et al. Comparison of fractional flow reserve assessment with demand stress myocardial contrast echocardiography in angiographically intermediate coronary stenoses. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9:e004129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. 208.
    Leung DY, Leung M. Non-invasive/invasive imaging: significance and assessment of coronary microvascular dysfunction. Heart. 2011;97:587–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. 209.
    Combined Pressure and Flow Measurements to Guide Treatment of Coronary Stenoses (DEFINE-FLOW). website. Published December 18, 2014. Updated May 12, 2016. Accessed September 14, 2017.
  210. 210.
    Johnson NP, Kirkeeide RL, Gould KL. Is discordance of coronary flow reserve and fractional flow reserve due to methodology or clinically relevant coronary pathophysiology? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:193–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. 211.
    Johnson NP, Gould KL. Regadenoson versus dipyridamole hyperemia for cardiac PET imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:438–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. 212.
    Hutchins GD, Schwaiger M, Rosenspire KC, Krivokapich J, Schelbert H, Kuhl DE. Noninvasive quantification of regional blood flow in the human heart using N-13 ammonia and dynamic positron emission tomographic imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;15:1032–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. 213.
    Chan SY, Brunken RC, Czernin J, et al. Comparison of maximal myocardial blood flow during adenosine infusion with that of intravenous dipyridamole in normal men. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;20:979–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. 214.
    Böttcher M, Czernin J, Sun K, Phelps ME, Schelbert HR. Effect of β1 adrenergic receptor blockade on myocardial blood flow and vasodilatory capacity. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:442–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  215. 215.
    Campisi R, Czernin J, Karpman HL, Schelbert HR. Coronary vasodilatory capacity and flow reserve in normal myocardium supplied by bypass grafts late after surgery. Am J Cardiol. 1997;80:27–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. 216.
    Nitzsche EU, Choi Y, Czernin J, Hoh CK, Huang S-C, Schelbert HR. Noninvasive quantification of myocardial blood flow in humans: a direct comparison of the [13N]ammonia and the [15O]water techniques. Circulation. 1996;93:2000–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. 217.
    Muzik O, Paridon SM, Singh TP, Morrow WR, Dayanikli F, Di Carli MF. Quantification of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve in children with a history of Kawasaki disease and normal coronary arteries using positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28:757–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  218. 218.
    DeGrado TR, Hanson MW, Turkington TG, et al. Estimation of myocardial blood flow for longitudinal studies with 13N-labeled ammonia and positron emission tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 1996;3:494–507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. 219.
    Schindler TH, Cardenas J, Prior JO, et al. Relationship between increasing body weight, insulin resistance, inflammation, adipocytokine leptin, and coronary circulatory function. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1188–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. 220.
    Valenta I, Quercioli A, Vincenti G, et al. Structural epicardial disease and microvascular function are determinants of an abnormal longitudinal myocardial blood flow difference in cardiovascular risk individuals as determined with PET/CT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:1023–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  221. 221.
    Renaud JM, Dasilva JN, Beanlands RSB, Dekemp RA. Characterizing the normal range of myocardial blood flow with 82rubidium and 13N-ammonia PET imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:578–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  222. 222.
    Lin JW, Sciacca RR, Chou RL, Laine AF, Bergmann SR. Quantification of myocardial perfusion in human subjects using 82Rb and wavelet-based noise reduction. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:201–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  223. 223.
    Manabe O, Yoshinaga K, Katoh C, Naya M, deKemp RA, Tamaki N. Repeatability of rest and hyperemic myocardial blood flow measurements with 82Rb dynamic PET. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:68–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  224. 224.
    Prior JO, Allenbach G, Valenta I, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb positron emission tomography: clinical validation with 15O-water. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1037–47.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  225. 225.
    Sdringola S, Johnson NP, Kirkeeide RL, Cid E, Gould KL. Impact of unexpected factors on quantitative myocardial perfusion and coronary flow reserve in young, asymptomatic volunteers. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:402–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  226. 226.
    Germino M, Ropchan J, Mulnix T, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb: Validation with 15O-water using time-of-flight and point-spread-function modeling. EJNMMI Res. 2016;6:68.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  227. 227.
    Farhad H, Murthy VL. Pharmacologic manipulation of coronary vascular physiology for the evaluation of coronary artery disease. Pharmacol Ther. 2013;149:121–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  228. 228.
    Nienaber CA, Ratib O, Gambhir SS, et al. A quantitative index of regional blood flow in canine myocardium derived noninvasively with N-13 ammonia and dynamic positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;17:260–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  229. 229.
    Schelbert HR, Phelps ME, Hoffman E, Huang S-C, Kuhl DE. Regional myocardial blood flow, metabolism and function assessed noninvasively with positron emission tomography. Am J Cardiol. 1980;46:1269–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  230. 230.
    De Bruyne B, Oldroyd KG, Pijls NHJ. Microvascular (dys)function and clinical outcome in stable coronary disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:1170–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology and Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Venkatesh L. Murthy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Timothy M. Bateman
    • 2
  • Rob S. Beanlands
    • 3
  • Daniel S. Berman
    • 4
  • Salvador Borges-Neto
    • 5
  • Panithaya Chareonthaitawee
    • 6
  • Manuel D. Cerqueira
    • 7
  • Robert A. deKemp
    • 3
  • E. Gordon DePuey
    • 8
  • Vasken Dilsizian
    • 9
  • Sharmila Dorbala
    • 10
  • Edward P. Ficaro
    • 11
  • Ernest V. Garcia
    • 12
  • Henry Gewirtz
    • 13
  • Gary V. Heller
    • 14
  • Howard C. Lewin
    • 15
  • Saurabh Malhotra
    • 16
  • April Mann
    • 17
  • Terrence D. Ruddy
    • 3
  • Thomas H. Schindler
    • 18
  • Ronald G. Schwartz
    • 19
  • Piotr J. Slomka
    • 4
  • Prem Soman
    • 20
  • Marcelo F. Di Carli
    • 10
  • Andrew Einstein
    • 21
  • Raymond Russell
    • 22
  • James R. Corbett
    • 23
  1. 1.Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Mid America Heart InstituteKansas CityUSA
  3. 3.National Cardiac PET Centre, Division of CardiologyUniversity of Ottawa Heart InstituteOttawaCanada
  4. 4.Departments of Imaging and MedicineCedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA
  5. 5.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, and Division of Cardiology, Department of MedicineDuke University School of Medicine, Duke University Health SystemDurhamUSA
  6. 6.Department of Cardiovascular MedicineMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  7. 7.Department of Nuclear MedicineCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  8. 8.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of RadiologyMt. Sinai St. Luke’s and Mt. Sinai West Hospitals, Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. SinaiNew YorkUSA
  9. 9.Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear MedicineUniversity of Maryland School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  10. 10.Cardiovascular Imaging ProgramBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  11. 11.Division of Nuclear MedicineUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  12. 12.Department of Radiology and Imaging SciencesEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  13. 13.Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  14. 14.Gagnon Cardiovascular InstituteMorristown Medical CenterMorristownUSA
  15. 15.Cardiac Imaging AssociatesLos AngelesUSA
  16. 16.Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical SciencesUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  17. 17.Hartford HospitalHartfordUSA
  18. 18.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of RadiologyJohns Hopkins School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  19. 19.Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, and Nuclear Medicine Division, Department of Imaging SciencesUniversity of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterUSA
  20. 20.Division of Cardiology, Heart and Vascular InstituteUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA
  21. 21.Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, and Department of RadiologyColumbia University Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA
  22. 22.Warren Alpert Medical SchoolBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  23. 23.Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, and Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of RadiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations