Patient-tailored risk assessment of obstructive coronary artery disease using Rubidium-82 PET-based myocardial flow quantification with visual interpretation.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to estimate the probability of obstructive CAD (oCAD) for an individual patient as a function of the myocardial flow reserve (MFR) measured with Rubidium-82 (Rb-82) PET in patients with a visually normal or abnormal scan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 1519 consecutive patients without a prior history of CAD referred for rest-stress Rb-82 PET/CT. All images were visually assessed by two experts and classified as normal or abnormal. We estimated the probability of oCAD for visually normal scans and scans with small (5%-10%) or larger defects (> 10%) as function of MFR. The primary endpoint was oCAD on invasive coronary angiography, when available. RESULTS: 1259 scans were classified as normal, 136 with a small defect and 136 with a larger defect. For the normal scans, the probability of oCAD increased exponentially from 1% to 10% when segmental MFR decreased from 2.1 to 1.3. For scans with small defects, the probability increased from 13% to 40% and for larger defects from 45% to > 70% when segmental MFR decreased from 2.1 to 0.7. CONCLUSION: Patients with > 10% risk of oCAD can be distinguished from patients with < 10% risk based on visual PET interpretation only. However, there is a strong dependence of MFR on patient's individual risk of oCAD. Hence, combining both visual interpretation and MFR results in a better individual risk assessment which may impact treatment strategy.

Semi-quantitative assessment of ischemia with rubidium-82 PET myocardial perfusion imaging.

PURPOSE: Semi-quantitative scores can be used as an adjunct to visual assessment in rubidium-82 positron emission tomography (82Rb PET). The semi-quantitative cut-off values used in 82Rb PET are derived from single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). It is unknown whether these cut-off values can be extrapolated to 82Rb PET. We compared the semi-quantitative with the visual assessment of ischemia and determined which summed difference score (SDS) score predicts ischemia best. METHODS: We included 108 patients who underwent 82Rb PET imaging and performed visual and semi-quantitative assessment. A scan with a SDS ≥ 2 and a summed stress score (SSS) ≥ 4 was considered to demonstrate ischemia. We compared the semi-quantitative with the visual assessment. RESULTS: 41 (38%) Normal scans, and 67 (62%) scans with ischemia and/or an irreversible defect were included. The semi-quantitative assessment showed ischemia more often than the visual assessment (51% vs 29%, P < .001). Patients with a low or intermediate pre-test probability of coronary artery disease (CAD) and a SDS < 4 did not demonstrate ischemia by visual assessment. CONCLUSION: Semi-quantitative assessment in 82Rb PET imaging clearly demonstrates the presence of ischemia. Ischemia is unlikely in patients with low and intermediate pre-test probability of CAD and a SDS < 4.