Pitfalls in quantitative myocardial PET perfusion I: Myocardial partial volume correction.

BACKGROUND: PET quantitative myocardial perfusion requires correction for partial volume loss due to one-dimensional LV wall thickness smaller than scanner resolution. METHODS: We aimed to assess accuracy of risk stratification for death, MI, or revascularization after PET using partial volume corrections derived from two-dimensional ACR and three-dimensional NEMA phantoms for 3987 diagnostic rest-stress perfusion PETs and 187 MACE events. NEMA, ACR, and Tree phantoms were imaged with Rb-82 or F-18 for size-dependent partial volume loss. Perfusion and Coronary Flow Capacity were recalculated using different ACR- and NEMA-derived partial volume corrections compared by Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics to standard perfusion metrics with established correlations with MACE. RESULTS: Partial volume corrections based on two-dimensional ACR rods (two equal radii) and three-dimensional NEMA spheres (three equal radii) over estimate partial volume corrections, quantitative perfusion, and Coronary Flow Capacity by 50% to 150% over perfusion metrics with one-dimensional partial volume correction, thereby substantially impairing correct risk stratification. CONCLUSIONS: ACR (2-dimensional) and NEMA (3-dimensional) phantoms overestimate partial volume corrections for 1-dimensional LV wall thickness and myocardial perfusion that are corrected with a simple equation that correlates with MACE for optimal risk stratification applicable to most PET-CT scanners for quantifying myocardial perfusion.

Prognostic value of microvascular resistance and its association to fractional flow reserve: a DEFINE-FLOW substudy.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of hyperemic microvascular resistance (HMR) and its relationship with hyperemic stenosis resistance (HSR) index and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in stable coronary artery disease. METHODS: This is a substudy of the DEFINE-FLOW cohort (NCT02328820), which evaluated the prognosis of lesions (n=456) after combined FFR and coronary flow reserve (CFR) assessment in a prospective, non-blinded, non-randomised, multicentre study in 12 centres in Europe and Japan. Participants (n=430) were evaluated by wire-based measurement of coronary pressure, flow and vascular resistance (ComboWire XT, Phillips Volcano, San Diego, California, USA). RESULTS: Mean FFR and CFR were 0.82±0.10 and 2.2±0.6, respectively. When divided according to FFR and CFR thresholds (above and below 0.80 and 2.0, respectively), HMR was highest in lesions with FFR>0.80 and CFR<2.0 (n=99) compared with lesions with FFR≤0.80 and CFR≥2.0 (n=68) (2.92±1.2 vs 1.91±0.64 mm Hg/cm/s, p<0.001). The FFR value was proportional to the ratio between HMR and the HMR+HSR (total resistance), 95% limits of agreement (-0.032; 0.019), bias (-0.003±0.02) and correlation (r2=0.98, p<0.0001). Cox regression model using HMR as continuous parameter for target vessel failure showed an HR of 1.51, 95% CI (0.9 to 2.4), p=0.10. CONCLUSIONS: Increased HMR was not associated with a higher rate of adverse clinical events, in this population of mainly stable patients. FFR can be equally well expressed as HMR/HMR+HSR, thereby providing an alternative conceptual formulation linking epicardial severity with microvascular resistance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02328820.