Key result
Stress myocardial blood flow correlated significantly with ventricular function (p<0.001), outperforming myocardial perfusion reserve which showed only a trend toward significance (p=0.063).
Why the study?
Does stress myocardial blood flow correlate with ventricular function better than myocardial perfusion reserve in patients with suspected myocardial ischemia?
Observational (n=248)
No
Does stress myocardial blood flow correlate with ventricular function better than myocardial perfusion reserve in patients with suspected myocardial ischemia?
Effect estimate: eta-squared 0.111
p-value: p=<0.001
Stress myocardial blood flow correlates better with ventricular function than myocardial perfusion reserve, suggesting it may be a more relevant marker of the functional consequences of ischemia.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac PET quantifies stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and perfusion reserve (MPR), while ECG-gated datasets can measure components of ventricular function simultaneously. Stress MBF seems to outperform MPR in the detection of significant CAD. However, it is uncertain which perfusion measurement is more related to ventricular function. We hypothesized that stress MBF correlates with ventricular function better than MPR in patients studied for suspected myocardial ischemia. METHODS: We studied 248 patients referred to a rest and adenosine-stress Nitrogen-13 ammonia PET. We performed a multivariate analysis using systolic function (left ventricular ejection fraction, LVEF), diastolic function (mean filling rate in diastole, MFR/3), and synchrony (Entropy) as the outcome variables, and stress MBF, MPR, and relevant covariates as the predictors. Secondarily, we repeated the analysis for the subgroup of patients with and without a previous myocardial infarction (MI). RESULTS: 166 male and 82 female patients (mean age 63 ± 11 and 67 ± 11 year, respectively) were included. 60% of the patients presented hypertension, 57% dyslipidemia, 21% type 2 diabetes mellitus, 45% smoking, and 34.7% a previous MI. Mean stress MBF was 1.99 ± 0.75 mL/g/min, MPR = 2.55 ± 0.89, LVEF = 61.6 ± 15%, MFR/3 = 1.12 ± 0.38 EDV/s, and Entropy = 45.6 ± 11.3%. There was a significant correlation between stress MBF (P < .001) and ventricular function. This was stronger than the one for MPR (P = .063). Sex, age, diabetes, and extent of previous MI were also significant predictors. Results were similar for the analyses of the 2 subgroups. CONCLUSION: Stress MBF is better correlated with ventricular function than MPR, as evaluated by Nitrogen-13 ammonia PET, independently from other relevant cardiovascular risk factors and clinical covariates. This relationship between coronary vasodilatory capacity and ventricular function is sustained across groups with and without a previous MI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Juárez‐Orozco et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Suspected myocardial ischemia (n=248). Stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) vs. Myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) was evaluated on Correlation with ventricular function (LVEF, MFR/3, and Entropy) (eta-squared 0.111, p=<0.001). Stress myocardial blood flow correlated significantly with ventricular function (p<0.001), outperforming myocardial perfusion reserve which showed only a trend toward significance (p=0.063).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: