Absolute myocardial blood flows derived by dynamic CZT scan vs invasive fractional flow reserve: Correlation and accuracy

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology volume 28, pages249–259(2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To define the diagnostic power of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) evaluation on dynamic CZT imaging in intermediate risk patients in comparison with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and fractional flow reserve (FFR).

Methods

Twenty-three stable CAD patients underwent one-day dynamic rest-stress 99mTc-Sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging by CZT camera. Stress and rest MBF values were calculated semi-automatically using a net retention model by Leppo. Coronary flow reserve (CFR) and flow difference (FD) [MBF stress − MBF rest] were also estimated. A total of 28 vessels were functionally quantified with FFR: 19 (68%) vessels with a stenosis ≥ 70% and 9 (32%) with < 70% stenotic lesions.

Results

The mean global MBFs at rest and during stress were 0.36 (IQR 0.33-0.54) mL/min/g and 0.67 (IQR 0.55-0.81) mL/min/g, respectively, with an average CFR of 1.80 (IQR 1.35-2.24). Moderate correlations between stenosis severity and FFR (r = 0.45; P = .01), stress MBF (r = −0.46; P = .01) and FD (r = −0.37; P = .04) were detected. FFR abnormalities were best predicted by absolute stress MBF, CFR and FD with values of ≤ 0.54 mL/min/g (sensitivity 61.5%; specificity 93.3%), ≤ 1.48 (sensitivity 69.2%; specificity 93.3%) and ≤ 0.18 mL/min/g (sensitivity 69.2%; specificity 100%), respectively.

Conclusions

The values of stress MBF, CFR and FD obtained through dynamic CZT acquisitions compare well with invasive FFR. The clinical use of dynamic acquisition of myocardial perfusion imaging by CZT may help cardiologist in the detection of hemodynamically significant CAD.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Figure  1
Figure  2
Figure  3
Figure  4

Abbreviations

CAD:

Coronary artery disease

CFR:

Coronary flow reserve

CZT:

Cadmium-zinc-telluride

FD:

Flow difference

FFR:

Fractional flow reserve

ICA:

Invasive coronary angiography

MBF:

Myocardial blood flow

MPI:

Myocardial perfusion imaging

SPECT:

Single-photon emission computerized

Reference

  1. 1.

    Murthy VL, Bateman TM, Beanlands RS, Berman DS, Borges-Neto S, Chareonthaitawee P, et al. Clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow using PET: Joint position paper of the SNMMI cardiovascular council and the ASNC. J Nucl Cardiol 2018;25:269-97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Ziadi MC. Myocardial flow reserve (MFR) with positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT): clinical impact in diagnosis and prognosis. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 2017;7:206-18.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Kajander SA, Joutsiniemi E, Saraste M, Pietilä M, Ukkonen H, Saraste A, et al. Clinical value of absolute quantification of myocardial perfusion with (15)O-water in coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4:678-84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wells RG, Timmins R, Klein R, Lockwood J, Marvin B, deKemp RA, et al. Dynamic SPECT measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow in a porcine model. J Nucl Med 2014;55:1685-91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Ben-Haim S, Murthy VL, Breault C, Allie R, Sitek A, Roth N, et al. Quantification of myocardial perfusion reserve using dynamic SPECT imaging in humans: A feasibility study. J Nucl Med 2013;54:873-9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Agostini D, Roule V, Nganoa C, Roth N, Baavour R, Parienti J-J, et al. First validation of myocardial flow reserve assessed by dynamic 99mTc-sestamibi CZT-SPECT camera: Head to head comparison with 15O-water PET and fractional flow reserve in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. The WATERDAY study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018;45:1079-90.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Nkoulou R, Fuchs TA, Pazhenkottil AP, Kuest SM, Ghadri JR, Stehli J, et al. Absolute myocardial blood flow and flow reserve assessed by gated SPECT with cadmium-zinc-telluride detectors using 99mTc-tetrofosmin: Head-to-head comparison with 13N-ammonia PET. J Nucl Med 2016;57:1887-92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Neglia D, Rovai D, Caselli C, Pietila M, Teresinska A, Aguadé-Bruix S, et al. Detection of significant coronary artery disease by noninvasive anatomical and functional imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8:e002179.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, Jacobs AK, Kaul S, Laskey WK, et al. Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation 2002;105:539-42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Leppo JA, Meerdink DJ. Comparison of the myocardial uptake of a technetium-labeled isonitrile analogue and thallium. Circ Res 1989;65:632-9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hutchins GD, Caraher JM, Raylman RR. A region of interest strategy for minimizing resolution distortions in quantitative myocardial PET studies. J Nucl Med 1992;33:1243-50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Tsuchida T, Yonekura Y, Takahashi N, Nakano A, Lee JD, Sadato N, et al. A trial for the quantification of regional myocardial blood flow with continuous infusion of Tc-99m MIBI and dynamic SPECT. Ann Nucl Med 1999;13:61-4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Camici PG, Rimoldi OE. The clinical value of myocardial blood flow measurement. J Nucl Med 2009;50:1076-87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837-45.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Task Force Members, Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, Andreotti F, Arden C, et al. ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: The Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2013;2013:2949-3003.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Sousa-Uva M, Neumann F-J, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning AP, Benedetto U, et al 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2018;40:87.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Driessen RS, Leipsic J, Raju R, Naoum C, et al. Comparison of coronary CT angiography, SPECT, PET, and hybrid imaging for diagnosis of ischemic heart disease determined by fractional flow reserve. JAMA Cardiol 2017;2:1100-7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Underwood SR, Anagnostopoulos C, Cerqueira M, Ell PJ, Flint EJ, Harbinson M, et al. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: The evidence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:261-91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Hida S, Chikamori T, Tanaka H, Igarashi Y, Shiba C, Hatano T, et al. Postischemic myocardial stunning is superior to transient ischemic dilation for detecting multivessel coronary artery disease. Circ J 2012;76:430-8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Beller GA. Underestimation of coronary artery disease with SPECT perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2008;15:151-3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Berman DS, Kang X, Slomka PJ, Gerlach J, de Yang L, Hayes SW, 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Naya M, Murthy VL, Taqueti VR, Foster CR, Klein J, Garber M, et al. Preserved coronary flow reserve effectively excludes high-risk coronary artery disease on angiography. J Nucl Med 2014;55:248-55.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    van Werkhoven JM, Schuijf JD, Jukema JW, Kroft LJ, Stokkel MPM, Dibbets-Schneider P, et al. Anatomic correlates of a normal perfusion scan using 64-slice computed tomographic coronary angiography. Am J Cardiol 2008;101:40-5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Crea F, Camici PG, Bairey Merz CN. Coronary microvascular dysfunction: An update. Eur Heart J 2014;35:1101-11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Storto G, Cirillo P, Vicario MLE, Pellegrino T, Sorrentino AR, Petretta M, et al. Estimation of coronary flow reserve by Tc-99m sestamibi imaging in patients with coronary artery disease: comparison with the results of intracoronary Doppler technique. J Nucl Cardiol 2004;11:682-8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hsu B, Hu L-H, Yang B-H, Chen L-C, Chen Y-K, Ting C-H, et al. SPECT myocardial blood flow quantitation toward clinical use: a comparative study with (13)N-Ammonia PET myocardial blood flow quantitation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017;44:117-28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Shrestha U, Sciammarella M, Alhassen F, Yeghiazarians Y, Ellin J, Verdin E, et al. Measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow in humans using dynamic cardiac SPECT and 99mTc-tetrofosmin: Method and validation. J Nucl Cardiol 2017;24:268-77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Shiraishi S, Sakamoto F, Tsuda N, Yoshida M, Tomiguchi S, Utsunomiya D, et al. Prediction of left main or 3-vessel disease using myocardial perfusion reserve on dynamic thallium-201 single-photon emission computed tomography with a semiconductor gamma camera. Circ J 2015;79:623-31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Ben Bouallègue F, Roubille F, Lattuca B, Cung TT, Macia J-C, Gervasoni R, et al. SPECT myocardial perfusion reserve in patients with multivessel coronary disease: Correlation with angiographic findings and invasive fractional flow reserve measurements. J Nucl Med 2015;56:1712-7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Lortie M, Beanlands RS, 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(11):1765-74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, Van Der Voort PH, Bonnier HJ, Bartunek J, Koolen JJ, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1703-8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, vant Veer M, et al. Fractional flow reserve vs angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009;360:213-24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, et al 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines and the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions. Circulation 2011;124:e574-651.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Danad I, Uusitalo V, Kero T, Saraste A, Raijmakers PG, Lammertsma AA, et al. Quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion in the detection of significant coronary artery disease: cutoff values and diagnostic accuracy of quantitative [(15)O]H2O PET imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:1464-75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Melikian N, De Bondt P, Tonino P, De Winter O, Wyffels E, Bartunek J, et al. Fractional flow reserve and myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with angiographic multivessel coronary artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010;3:307-14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Wells RG, Marvin B, Poirier M, Renaud J, deKemp RA, Ruddy TD. Optimization of SPECT measurement of myocardial blood flow with corrections for attenuation, motion, and blood binding compared with PET. J Nucl Med 2017;58:2013-9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Miyagawa M, Nishiyama Y, Uetani T, Ogimoto A, Ikeda S, Ishimura H, et al. Estimation of myocardial flow reserve utilizing an ultrafast cardiac SPECT: Comparison with coronary angiography, fractional flow reserve, and the SYNTAX score. Int J Cardiol 2017;244:347-53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Han S, Kim Y-H, Ahn J-M, Kang S-J, Oh JS, Shin E, et al. Feasibility of dynamic stress 201Tl/rest 99mTc-tetrofosmin single photon emission computed tomography for quantification of myocardial perfusion reserve in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018;45:2173-80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

Konstantin V. Zavadovsky, Andrew V. Mochula, Alla A. Boshchenko, Alexander V. Vrublevsky, Andrew E. Baev, Alexander L. Krylov, Marina O. Gulya, Evgeny A. Nesterov, Riccardo Liga and Alessia Gimelli declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Cardiology Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences, Kievskaya Str 111A, Tomsk, Russia, 634012

    Konstantin V. Zavadovsky MD, Andrew V. Mochula PhD, Alla A. Boshchenko MD, Alexander V. Vrublevsky MD, Andrew E. Baev PhD, Alexander L. Krylov MD & Marina O. Gulya PhD

  2. National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia

    Evgeny A. Nesterov PhD

  3. Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy

    Riccardo Liga MD

  4. Fondazione Toscana/CNR Gabriele Monasterio, Pisa, Italy

    Alessia Gimelli MD

Authors
  1. Konstantin V. Zavadovsky MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew V. Mochula PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alla A. Boshchenko MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexander V. Vrublevsky MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew E. Baev PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexander L. Krylov MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marina O. Gulya PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Evgeny A. Nesterov PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Riccardo Liga MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Alessia Gimelli MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konstantin V. Zavadovsky MD.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The authors of this article have provided a PowerPoint file, available for download at SpringerLink, which summarises the contents of the paper and is free for re-use at meetings and presentations. Search for the article DOI on SpringerLink.com

Funding

Contribution of Evgeniy A. Nesterov from Tomsk Polytechnic University was funded by Tomsk Polytechnic University Competitiveness Enhancement Program Grant (VIU-Laboratory No. 31 YAR-221/2018).

All editorial decisions for this article, including selection of reviewers and the final decision, were made by guest editor Saurabh Malhotra, MD, MPH.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 826 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zavadovsky, K.V., Mochula, A.V., Boshchenko, A.A. et al. Absolute myocardial blood flows derived by dynamic CZT scan vs invasive fractional flow reserve: Correlation and accuracy. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 28, 249–259 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-019-01678-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Absolute myocardial blood flow
  • coronary flow reserve
  • CZT camera
  • fractional flow reserve