Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Myocardial Blood Flow Quantification for Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease by Positron Emission Tomography, Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Computed Tomography

  • Cardiac PET, CT, and MRI (SE Petersen, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Cardiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The noninvasive detection of the presence and functional significance of coronary artery stenosis is important in the diagnosis, risk assessment, and management of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion can provide an objective and reproducible estimate of myocardial ischemia and risk prediction. Positron emission tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance, and cardiac computed tomography perfusion are modalities capable of measuring myocardial blood flow and coronary flow reserve. In this review, we will discuss the technical aspects of quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging with positron emission tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography, and its emerging clinical applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CAD:

Coronary artery disease

CFR:

Coronary Flow reserve

CMR:

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

CTA:

Computed tomography angiography

CTP:

Computed tomography Perfusion

EBCT:

Electron beam computed tomography

ECG:

Electrocardiogram

MBF:

Myocardial blood flow

MDCT:

Multi-detector computed tomography

MPI:

Myocardial perfusion imaging

PET:

Positron emission tomography

SI:

Signal intensity

SPECT:

Single-photon emission computed tomography

TAC:

Time activity curves

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Harrell FE, Lee KL, Califf RM, Pryor DB. Exercise treadmill score for predicting prognosis in coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:793–800.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Leppo JA. Comparison of pharmacologic stress agents. J Nucl Cardiol. 1996;3(6 Pt 2):S22–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Di Carli MF. Advances in positron emission tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004;11:719–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bratis K, Mahmoud I, Chiribiri A, Nagel E. Quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging by cardiovascular magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:860–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Salerno M, Beller GA. Noninvasive assessment of myocardial perfusion. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:412–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH, et al. ACC/AHA/ASNC guidelines for the clinical use of cardiac radionuclide imaging—executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASNC Committee to revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:1318–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hesse B, Tägil K, Cuocolo A, et al. EANM/ESC procedural guidelines for myocardial perfusion imaging in nuclear cardiology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:855–97.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hesse B, Lindhardt TB, Acampa W, et al. EANM/ESC guidelines for radionuclide imaging of cardiac function. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:851–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kuhle WG, Porenta G, Huang SC, et al. Quantification of regional myocardial blood flow using 13N-ammonia and reoriented dynamic positron emission tomographic imaging. Circulation. 1992;86:1004–17.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Weinberg IN, Huang SC, Hoffman EJ, et al. Validation of PET-acquired input functions for cardiac studies. J Nucl Med. 1988;29:241–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gambhir SS, Schwaiger M, Huang SC, et al. Simple noninvasive quantification method for measuring myocardial glucose utilization in humans employing positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 deoxyglucose. J Nucl Med. 1989;30:359–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bengel FM, Higuchi T, Javadi MS, Lautamäki R. Cardiac positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nitzsche EU, Choi Y, Czernin J, Hoh CK, Huang SC, 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. El Fakhri G, Kardan A, Sitek A, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of quantitative myocardial blood flow assessment with (82)Rb PET: comparison with (13)N-ammonia PET. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1062–71.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gerber BL, Raman SV, Nayak K, et al. Myocardial first-pass perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance: history, theory, and current state of the art. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2008;10:18.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Saeed M, Wendland MF, Higgins CB. Contrast media for MR imaging of the heart. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1994;4:269–79.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Heidemann RM, Ozsarlak O, Parizel PM, et al. A brief review of parallel magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:2323–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Daly C, Kwong RY. Cardiac MRI for myocardial ischemia. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2013;9:123–31.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, 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 

  23. Wolff SD, Schwitter J, Coulden R, et al. Myocardial first-pass perfusion magnetic resonance imaging: a multicenter dose-ranging study. Circulation. 2004;110:732–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Plein S, Greenwood JP, Ridgway JP, Cranny G, Ball SG, Sivananthan MU. Assessment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:2173–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Takase B, Nagata M, Kihara T, et al. Whole-heart dipyridamole stress first-pass myocardial perfusion MRI for the detection of coronary artery disease. Jpn Heart J. 2004;45:475–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Younger JF, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet. 2012;379:453–60. This large, prospective study, demonstrated CMR’s diagnostic accuracy in coronary artery disease, and CMR’s superiority over SPECT.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Patel AR, Antkowiak PF, Nandalur KR, et al. Assessment of advanced coronary artery disease: advantages of quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:561–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ishida M, Schuster A, Morton G, et al. Development of a universal dual-bolus injection scheme for the quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011;13:28. This study showed that a dual-bolus injection scheme is a feasible technique to obtain CMR absolute myocardial blood flow quantification.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kwong RY. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. Totowa: Humana; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jerosch-Herold M, Wilke N, Stillman AE. Magnetic resonance quantification of the myocardial perfusion reserve with a Fermi function model for constrained deconvolution. Med Phys. 1998;25:73–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Larsson HB, Stubgaard M, Søndergaard L, Henriksen O. In vivo quantification of the unidirectional influx constant for Gd-DTPA diffusion across the myocardial capillaries with MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1994;4:433–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hsu LY, Groves DW, Aletras AH, Kellman P, Arai AE. A quantitative pixel-wise measurement of myocardial blood flow by contrast-enhanced first-pass CMR perfusion imaging: microsphere validation in dogs and feasibility study in humans. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:154–66.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schwitter J, Nanz D, Kneifel S, et al. Assessment of myocardial perfusion in coronary artery disease by magnetic resonance: a comparison with positron emission tomography and coronary angiography. Circulation. 2001;103:2230–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ibrahim T, Nekolla SG, Schreiber K, et al. Assessment of coronary flow reserve: comparison between contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:864–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pärkkä JP, Niemi P, Saraste A, et al. Comparison of MRI and positron emission tomography for measuring myocardial perfusion reserve in healthy humans. Magn Reson Med. 2006;55:772–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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. This study demonstrated a good correlation between PET and CMR myocardial perfusion reserve.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Fritz-Hansen T, Hove JD, Kofoed KF, Kelbaek H, Larsson HB. Quantification of MRI measured myocardial perfusion reserve in healthy humans: a comparison with positron emission tomography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27(4):818–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Costa MA, Shoemaker S, Futamatsu H, et al. Quantitative magnetic resonance perfusion imaging detects anatomic and physiologic coronary artery disease as measured by coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:514–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lockie T, Ishida M, Perera D, et al. High-resolution magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging at 3.0-Tesla to detect hemodynamically significant coronary stenoses as determined by fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:70–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Blankstein R, Di Carli MF. Integration of coronary anatomy and myocardial perfusion imaging. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2010;7:226–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Di Carli MF, Dorbala S. Cardiac PET-CT. J Thorac Imaging. 2007;22:101–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Di Carli MF, Dorbala S, Curillova Z, et al. Relationship between CT coronary angiography and stress perfusion imaging in patients with suspected ischemic heart disease assessed by integrated PET-CT imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:799–809.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. George RT, Silva C, Cordeiro MA, et al. Multidetector computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging during adenosine stress. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:153–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. George RT, Jerosch-Herold M, Silva C, et al. Quantification of myocardial perfusion using dynamic 64-detector computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:815–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. George RT, Arbab-Zadeh A, Miller JM, et al. Adenosine stress 64- and 256-row detector computed tomography angiography and perfusion imaging: a pilot study evaluating the transmural extent of perfusion abnormalities to predict atherosclerosis causing myocardial ischemia. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:174–82.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Blankstein R, Shturman LD, Rogers IS, et al. Adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging using dual-source cardiac computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1072–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Okada DR, Ghoshhajra BB, Blankstein R, et al. Direct comparison of rest and adenosine stress myocardial perfusion CT with rest and stress SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:27–37.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Rocha-Filho JA, Blankstein R, Shturman LD, et al. Incremental value of adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging with dual-source CT at cardiac CT angiography. Radiology. 2010;254:410–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Cury RC, Magalhães TA, Borges AC, et al. Dipyridamole stress and rest myocardial perfusion by 64-detector row computed tomography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:310–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Vavere AL, Simon GG, George RT, et al. Diagnostic performance of combined noninvasive coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging using 320 row detector computed tomography: design and implementation of the CORE320 multicenter, multinational diagnostic study. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011;5:370–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hulten EA, Bittencourt MS, Ghoshhajra B, Blankstein R. Stress CT perfusion: coupling coronary anatomy with physiology. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:588–600.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Feuchtner G, Goetti R, Plass A, et al. Adenosine stress high-pitch 128-slice dual-source myocardial computed tomography perfusion for imaging of reversible myocardial ischemia: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:540–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bamberg F, Klotz E, Flohr T, et al. Dynamic myocardial stress perfusion imaging using fast dual-source CT with alternating table positions: initial experience. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:1168–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ho KT, Chua KC, Klotz E, Panknin C. Stress and rest dynamic myocardial perfusion imaging by evaluation of complete time-attenuation curves with dual-source CT. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:811–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Bamberg F, Becker A, Schwarz F, et al. Detection of hemodynamically significant coronary artery stenosis: incremental diagnostic value of dynamic CT-based myocardial perfusion imaging. Radiology. 2011;260:689–98.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Schwarz F, Hinkel R, Baloch E, et al. Myocardial CT perfusion imaging in a large animal model: comparison of dynamic versus single-phase acquisitions. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:1229–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Wolfkiel CJ, Ferguson JL, Chomka EV, et al. Measurement of myocardial blood flow by ultrafast computed tomography. Circulation. 1987;76:1262–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Rumberger JA, Feiring AJ, Lipton MJ, Higgins CB, Ell SR, Marcus ML. Use of ultrafast computed tomography to quantitate regional myocardial perfusion: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987;9:59–69.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Valdiviezo C, Ambrose M, Mehra V, Lardo AC, Lima JA, George RT. Quantitative and qualitative analysis and interpretation of CT perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:1091–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Bell MR, Lerman LO, Rumberger JA. Validation of minimally invasive measurement of myocardial perfusion using electron beam computed tomography and application in human volunteers. Heart. 1999;81:628–35.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Bamberg F, Hinkel R, Schwarz F, et al. Accuracy of dynamic computed tomography adenosine stress myocardial perfusion imaging in estimating myocardial blood flow at various degrees of coronary artery stenosis using a porcine animal model. Investig Radiol. 2012;47:71–7.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Rossi A, Uitterdijk A, Dijkshoorn M, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow by adenosine-stress CT perfusion imaging in pigs during various degrees of stenosis correlates well with coronary artery blood flow and fractional flow reserve. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;14:331–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bastarrika G, Ramos-Duran L, Rosenblum MA, Kang DK, Rowe GW, Schoepf UJ. Adenosine-stress dynamic myocardial CT perfusion imaging: initial clinical experience. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:306–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Ruzsics B, Surányi P, Kiss P, et al. Automated multidetector computed tomography evaluation of subacutely infarcted myocardium. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2008;2:26–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Nagao M, Matsuoka H, Kawakami H, et al. Detection of myocardial ischemia using 64-slice MDCT. Circ J. 2009;73:905–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. George RT, Arbab-Zadeh A, Cerci RJ, et al. Diagnostic performance of combined noninvasive coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging using 320-MDCT: the CT angiography and perfusion methods of the CORE320 multicenter multinational diagnostic study. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:829–37.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Rochitte CE, George RT, Chen MY, et al. Computed tomography angiography and perfusion to assess coronary artery stenosis causing perfusion defects by single photon emission computed tomography: the CORE320 study. Eur Heart J. 2013. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht488

  68. Gramer BM, Muenzel D, Leber V, et al. Impact of iterative reconstruction on CNR and SNR in dynamic myocardial perfusion imaging in an animal model. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:2654–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Gould KL, Goldstein RA, Mullani NA, et al. Noninvasive assessment of coronary stenoses by myocardial perfusion imaging during pharmacologic coronary vasodilation. VIII. Clinical feasibility of positron cardiac imaging without a cyclotron using generator-produced rubidium-82. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986;7:775–89.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Tamaki N, Yonekura Y, Senda M, et al. Value and limitation of stress thallium-201 single photon emission computed tomography: comparison with nitrogen-13 ammonia positron tomography. J Nucl Med. 1988;29:1181–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Demer LL, Gould KL, Goldstein RA, et al. Assessment of coronary artery disease severity by positron emission tomography. Comparison with quantitative arteriography in 193 patients. Circulation. 1989;79:825–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Go RT, Marwick TH, MacIntyre WJ, et al. A prospective comparison of rubidium-82 PET and thallium-201 SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging utilizing a single dipyridamole stress in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med. 1990;31:1899–905.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Marwick TH, Nemec JJ, Stewart WJ, Salcedo EE. Diagnosis of coronary artery disease using exercise echocardiography and positron emission tomography: comparison and analysis of discrepant results. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1992;5:231–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Stewart RE, Schwaiger M, Molina E, et al. Comparison of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography and thallium-201 SPECT imaging for detection of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1991;67:1303–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Grover-McKay M, Ratib O, Schwaiger M, et al. Detection of coronary artery disease with positron emission tomography and rubidium 82. Am Heart J. 1992;123:646–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Jaarsma C, Leiner T, Bekkers SC, et al. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive myocardial perfusion imaging using single-photon emission computed tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance, and positron emission tomography imaging for the detection of obstructive coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1719–28. This meta-analysis compared the diagnostic performance of the 3 most commonly used modalities for myocardial perfusion (ie, SPECT, CMR, and PET). They all yielded a high sensitivity, and PET achieved the highest diagnostic performance while CMR had a similar diagnostic accuracy.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Otton J, Morton G, Schuster A, et al. A direct comparison of the sensitivity of CT and MR cardiac perfusion using a myocardial perfusion phantom. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2013;7:117–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Watkins S, McGeoch R, Lyne J, et al. Validation of magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging with fractional flow reserve for the detection of significant coronary heart disease. Circulation. 2009;120:2207–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Rieber J, Huber A, Erhard I, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for the functional assessment of coronary artery disease: a comparison with coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:1465–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Melikian N, De Bondt P, Tonino P, 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 

  81. Dorbala S, Vangala D, Sampson U, Limaye A, Kwong R, Di Carli MF. Value of vasodilator left ventricular ejection fraction reserve in evaluating the magnitude of myocardium at risk and the extent of angiographic coronary artery disease: an 82Rb PET/CT study. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:349–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Beanlands RS, 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Fiechter M, Ghadri JR, Gebhard C, et al. Diagnostic value of 13 N-ammonia myocardial perfusion PET: added value of myocardial flow reserve. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1230–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Naya M, Murthy VL, Taqueti VR, Foster CR, Klein J, Garber M, et al. Preserved coronary flow reserve effectively excludes high-risk angiographic coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:248–55. This study showed , that the presence of a relatively normal global CFR (>2.0) in patients with normal or abnormal myocardial perfusion scan was associated with a very low likelihood of high-risk angiographic CAD.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Petersen SE, Jerosch-Herold M, Hudsmith LE, et al. Evidence for microvascular dysfunction in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: new insights from multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation. 2007;115:2418–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, et al. Improved cardiac risk assessment with noninvasive measures of coronary flow reserve. Circulation. 2011;124:2215–24. This study revealed prognostic value of CFR as an independent risk factor that can be used to re-classify patients.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. 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.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Murthy VL, Shah AM, Groarke JD, Naya M, Desai AS, Di Carli MF. Coronary vascular dysfunction in the absence of overt coronary atherosclerosis is independently associated with left ventricular diastolic and subclinical systolic dysfunction. Circulation. 2012;126:A17175. This study demonstrated that in a large cohort of patients, a reduced global CFR is independently associated with higher rates of cardiac and all-cause mortality with and without diabetes mellitus. It also demonstrated that diabetic patients without known CAD but with impaired CFR experienced a rate of cardiac death comparable or higher than nondiabetics with known CAD.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Expert Panel on Detection Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001;285:2486–97.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Bulugahapitiya U, Siyambalapitiya S, Sithole J, Idris I. Is diabetes a coronary risk equivalent? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabet Med. 2009;26:142–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Schramm TK, Gislason GH, Køber L, et al. Diabetes patients requiring glucose-lowering therapy and nondiabetics with a prior myocardial infarction carry the same cardiovascular risk: a population study of 3.3 million people. Circulation. 2008;117:1945–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Wannamethee SG, Shaper AG, Whincup PH, Lennon L, Sattar N. Impact of diabetes on cardiovascular disease risk and all-cause mortality in older men: influence of age at onset, diabetes duration, and established and novel risk factors. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:404–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Jahnke C, Nagel E, Gebker R, et al. Prognostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance stress tests: adenosine stress perfusion and dobutamine stress wall motion imaging. Circulation. 2007;115:1769–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Shah R, Heydari B, Coelho-Filho O, et al. Stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provides effective cardiac risk reclassification in patients with known or suspected stable coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2013;128:605–14. This study demonstrated that CMR perfusion can provide effective cardiac risk reclassification.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Dorbala S, Hachamovitch R, Curillova Z, et al. Incremental prognostic value of gated Rb-82 positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging over clinical variables and rest LVEF. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:846–54.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Gould KL, Johnson NP, Bateman TM, et al. Anatomic vs 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. This review article shows how coronary flow and assessment of physiology can be used for treating patients, and that the basic concepts hold true for whatever technology used to measure coronary flow.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Schächinger V, Zeiher AM. Prognostic implications of endothelial dysfunction: does it mean anything? Coron Artery Dis. 2001;12:435–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Halcox JP, Schenke WH, Zalos G, et al. Prognostic value of coronary vascular endothelial dysfunction. Circulation. 2002;106:653–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Schindler TH, Hornig B, Buser PT, et al. Prognostic value of abnormal vasoreactivity of epicardial coronary arteries to sympathetic stimulation in patients with normal coronary angiograms. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2003;23:495–501.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Schindler TH, Nitzsche EU, Munzel T, et al. Coronary vasoregulation in patients with various risk factors in response to cold pressor testing: contrasting myocardial blood flow responses to short- and long-term vitamin C administration. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:814–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1503–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino PA, et al. Fractional flow reserve vs angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:177–84. This large, multicenter, international trial demonstrated that fractional flow reserve guided percutaneous coronary interventions have had better outcomes compared with angiography-guided interventions.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI vs medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:991–1001. This large, multicenter, international trial showed that in patients with functionally significant coronary stenosis, fractional flow reserve guided percutaneous coronary interventions decreased urgent revascularization compared with medical therapy alone.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Arai AE, Hsu LY. Myocardial perfusion using first-pass gadolinium-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance. In: Kwong RY, editor. Cardiovasc Magn Reson Imaging. Totowa, New Jersey: Humana Press; 2008. p. 316.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Alfonso H. Waller, Ron Blankstein, and Raymond Y. Kwong declare that they have no conflict of interest. Marcelo F. Di Carli receives research grant support from Toshiba.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Non-Invasive Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Department of Medicine (Cardiovascular Division) and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Alfonso H. Waller, Ron Blankstein, Raymond Y. Kwong & Marcelo F. Di Carli

  2. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, ASB-L1 037C, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Marcelo F. Di Carli

Authors
  1. Alfonso H. Waller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ron Blankstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raymond Y. Kwong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcelo F. Di Carli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcelo F. Di Carli.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Cardiac PET, CT, and MRI

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Waller, A.H., Blankstein, R., Kwong, R.Y. et al. Myocardial Blood Flow Quantification for Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease by Positron Emission Tomography, Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Computed Tomography. Curr Cardiol Rep 16, 483 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-014-0483-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-014-0483-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation