The effect of coronary revascularization on regional myocardial blood flow as assessed by stress positron emission tomography

We examined whether regional improvement in stress myocardial blood flow (sMBF) following angiography-guided coronary revascularization depends on the existence of a perfusion defect on positron emission tomography (PET). Percent stenosis on coronary angiography often is the main factor when decidin...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of nuclear cardiology 2017-06, Vol.24 (3), p.961-974
Hauptverfasser: Bober, Robert M., Thompson, Caleb D., Morin, Daniel P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 974
container_issue 3
container_start_page 961
container_title Journal of nuclear cardiology
container_volume 24
creator Bober, Robert M.
Thompson, Caleb D.
Morin, Daniel P.
description We examined whether regional improvement in stress myocardial blood flow (sMBF) following angiography-guided coronary revascularization depends on the existence of a perfusion defect on positron emission tomography (PET). Percent stenosis on coronary angiography often is the main factor when deciding whether to perform revascularization, but it does not reliably relate to maximum sMBF. PET is a validated method of assessing sMBF. 19 patients (79% M, 65 ± 12 years) underwent PET stress before and after revascularization (17 PCI, 2 CABG). Pre- and post-revascularization sMBF for each left ventricular quadrant (anterior, septal, lateral, and inferior) was stratified by the presence or absence of a baseline perfusion defect on PET and whether that region was revascularized. Intervention was performed on 40 of 76 quadrants. When a baseline perfusion defect existed in a region that was revascularized (n = 26), post-revascularization flow increased by 0.6 ± 0.7 cc/min/g (1.2 ± 0.4 vs 1.7 ± 0.8, P < 0.001). When no defect existed but revascularization was performed (n = 14), sMBF did not change significantly (1.7 ± 0.3 vs 1.5 ± 0.4 cc/min/g, P = 0.16). In regions without a defect that were not revascularized (n = 29), sMBF did not significantly change (2.0 ± 0.6 vs 1.9 ± 0.7, P = 0.7). When a stress-induced perfusion defect exists on PET, revascularization improves sMBF in that region. When there is no such defect, sMBF shows no net change, whether or not intervention is performed in that area. PET stress may be useful for identifying areas of myocardium that could benefit from revascularization, and also areas in which intervention is unlikely to yield improvement in myocardial blood flow.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s12350-016-0442-2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826674399</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1071358123065522</els_id><sourcerecordid>1826674399</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c490t-20e31f41e45599e23044625ad7dd6baf69b4e76183c74d3355cf4d6b1f8979da3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UU2LFTEQHERxP_QHeJGAFy-j-ZxM8CSLusKCl_UcMknnbZaZyTOZ2eUJ_nf7MauIh4WGFHRVdbqraV4x-o5Rqt9XxoWiLWVdS6XkLX_SnDIleNspxZ4ippq1QvXspDmr9ZZSaoQxz5sTrilnolenza_rGyAQI_iF5Eh8Lnl25UAK3Lnq19GV9NMtKc8Eq8AOkRvJdMjelZAQDmPOgcQx3xNXsSpgBTIcSF0KYrLPNS3oSmBKtR6dljzlXXH7m8OL5ll0Y4WXD-958_3zp-uLy_bq25evFx-vWi8NXVpOQbAoGUiljAEucNuOKxd0CN3gYmcGCbpjvfBaBiGU8lFih8XeaBOcOG_ebr77kn-sUBeLf_Ewjm6GvFbLet51WuJxkPrmP-ptXgsujSzDpNa0pwxZbGP5kmstEO2-pAkPZxm1x2zslo3FbOwxG8tR8_rBeR0mCH8Vf8JAAt8IFVvzDso_ox9x_bCJAO93l1BUfYLZQ0gFQ7Uhp0fUvwGUsa5v</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1914770801</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The effect of coronary revascularization on regional myocardial blood flow as assessed by stress positron emission tomography</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink</source><creator>Bober, Robert M. ; Thompson, Caleb D. ; Morin, Daniel P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bober, Robert M. ; Thompson, Caleb D. ; Morin, Daniel P.</creatorcontrib><description>We examined whether regional improvement in stress myocardial blood flow (sMBF) following angiography-guided coronary revascularization depends on the existence of a perfusion defect on positron emission tomography (PET). Percent stenosis on coronary angiography often is the main factor when deciding whether to perform revascularization, but it does not reliably relate to maximum sMBF. PET is a validated method of assessing sMBF. 19 patients (79% M, 65 ± 12 years) underwent PET stress before and after revascularization (17 PCI, 2 CABG). Pre- and post-revascularization sMBF for each left ventricular quadrant (anterior, septal, lateral, and inferior) was stratified by the presence or absence of a baseline perfusion defect on PET and whether that region was revascularized. Intervention was performed on 40 of 76 quadrants. When a baseline perfusion defect existed in a region that was revascularized (n = 26), post-revascularization flow increased by 0.6 ± 0.7 cc/min/g (1.2 ± 0.4 vs 1.7 ± 0.8, P &lt; 0.001). When no defect existed but revascularization was performed (n = 14), sMBF did not change significantly (1.7 ± 0.3 vs 1.5 ± 0.4 cc/min/g, P = 0.16). In regions without a defect that were not revascularized (n = 29), sMBF did not significantly change (2.0 ± 0.6 vs 1.9 ± 0.7, P = 0.7). When a stress-induced perfusion defect exists on PET, revascularization improves sMBF in that region. When there is no such defect, sMBF shows no net change, whether or not intervention is performed in that area. PET stress may be useful for identifying areas of myocardium that could benefit from revascularization, and also areas in which intervention is unlikely to yield improvement in myocardial blood flow.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1071-3581</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-6551</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12350-016-0442-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27021385</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Blood Flow Velocity ; Cardiology ; Coronary Circulation ; Coronary Stenosis - diagnostic imaging ; Coronary Stenosis - physiopathology ; Coronary Stenosis - surgery ; Defects ; Exercise Test - methods ; Female ; Humans ; Imaging ; Male ; Medical imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; myocardial blood flow ; Myocardial Perfusion Imaging - methods ; Nuclear Medicine ; Original Article ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods ; Positron emission tomography ; Positron-Emission Tomography - methods ; Radiology ; Reproducibility of Results ; revascularization ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Tomography ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Journal of nuclear cardiology, 2017-06, Vol.24 (3), p.961-974</ispartof><rights>2017 American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. Published by ELSEVIER INC. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2016</rights><rights>Journal of Nuclear Cardiology is a copyright of Springer, 2017.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c490t-20e31f41e45599e23044625ad7dd6baf69b4e76183c74d3355cf4d6b1f8979da3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c490t-20e31f41e45599e23044625ad7dd6baf69b4e76183c74d3355cf4d6b1f8979da3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12350-016-0442-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12350-016-0442-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27021385$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bober, Robert M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Caleb D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morin, Daniel P.</creatorcontrib><title>The effect of coronary revascularization on regional myocardial blood flow as assessed by stress positron emission tomography</title><title>Journal of nuclear cardiology</title><addtitle>J. Nucl. Cardiol</addtitle><addtitle>J Nucl Cardiol</addtitle><description>We examined whether regional improvement in stress myocardial blood flow (sMBF) following angiography-guided coronary revascularization depends on the existence of a perfusion defect on positron emission tomography (PET). Percent stenosis on coronary angiography often is the main factor when deciding whether to perform revascularization, but it does not reliably relate to maximum sMBF. PET is a validated method of assessing sMBF. 19 patients (79% M, 65 ± 12 years) underwent PET stress before and after revascularization (17 PCI, 2 CABG). Pre- and post-revascularization sMBF for each left ventricular quadrant (anterior, septal, lateral, and inferior) was stratified by the presence or absence of a baseline perfusion defect on PET and whether that region was revascularized. Intervention was performed on 40 of 76 quadrants. When a baseline perfusion defect existed in a region that was revascularized (n = 26), post-revascularization flow increased by 0.6 ± 0.7 cc/min/g (1.2 ± 0.4 vs 1.7 ± 0.8, P &lt; 0.001). When no defect existed but revascularization was performed (n = 14), sMBF did not change significantly (1.7 ± 0.3 vs 1.5 ± 0.4 cc/min/g, P = 0.16). In regions without a defect that were not revascularized (n = 29), sMBF did not significantly change (2.0 ± 0.6 vs 1.9 ± 0.7, P = 0.7). When a stress-induced perfusion defect exists on PET, revascularization improves sMBF in that region. When there is no such defect, sMBF shows no net change, whether or not intervention is performed in that area. PET stress may be useful for identifying areas of myocardium that could benefit from revascularization, and also areas in which intervention is unlikely to yield improvement in myocardial blood flow.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Blood Flow Velocity</subject><subject>Cardiology</subject><subject>Coronary Circulation</subject><subject>Coronary Stenosis - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Coronary Stenosis - physiopathology</subject><subject>Coronary Stenosis - surgery</subject><subject>Defects</subject><subject>Exercise Test - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>myocardial blood flow</subject><subject>Myocardial Perfusion Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Nuclear Medicine</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods</subject><subject>Positron emission tomography</subject><subject>Positron-Emission Tomography - methods</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>revascularization</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1071-3581</issn><issn>1532-6551</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UU2LFTEQHERxP_QHeJGAFy-j-ZxM8CSLusKCl_UcMknnbZaZyTOZ2eUJ_nf7MauIh4WGFHRVdbqraV4x-o5Rqt9XxoWiLWVdS6XkLX_SnDIleNspxZ4ippq1QvXspDmr9ZZSaoQxz5sTrilnolenza_rGyAQI_iF5Eh8Lnl25UAK3Lnq19GV9NMtKc8Eq8AOkRvJdMjelZAQDmPOgcQx3xNXsSpgBTIcSF0KYrLPNS3oSmBKtR6dljzlXXH7m8OL5ll0Y4WXD-958_3zp-uLy_bq25evFx-vWi8NXVpOQbAoGUiljAEucNuOKxd0CN3gYmcGCbpjvfBaBiGU8lFih8XeaBOcOG_ebr77kn-sUBeLf_Ewjm6GvFbLet51WuJxkPrmP-ptXgsujSzDpNa0pwxZbGP5kmstEO2-pAkPZxm1x2zslo3FbOwxG8tR8_rBeR0mCH8Vf8JAAt8IFVvzDso_ox9x_bCJAO93l1BUfYLZQ0gFQ7Uhp0fUvwGUsa5v</recordid><startdate>20170601</startdate><enddate>20170601</enddate><creator>Bober, Robert M.</creator><creator>Thompson, Caleb D.</creator><creator>Morin, Daniel P.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170601</creationdate><title>The effect of coronary revascularization on regional myocardial blood flow as assessed by stress positron emission tomography</title><author>Bober, Robert M. ; Thompson, Caleb D. ; Morin, Daniel P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c490t-20e31f41e45599e23044625ad7dd6baf69b4e76183c74d3355cf4d6b1f8979da3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Blood Flow Velocity</topic><topic>Cardiology</topic><topic>Coronary Circulation</topic><topic>Coronary Stenosis - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Coronary Stenosis - physiopathology</topic><topic>Coronary Stenosis - surgery</topic><topic>Defects</topic><topic>Exercise Test - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>myocardial blood flow</topic><topic>Myocardial Perfusion Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Nuclear Medicine</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods</topic><topic>Positron emission tomography</topic><topic>Positron-Emission Tomography - methods</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>revascularization</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bober, Robert M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Caleb D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morin, Daniel P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Health Medical collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of nuclear cardiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bober, Robert M.</au><au>Thompson, Caleb D.</au><au>Morin, Daniel P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The effect of coronary revascularization on regional myocardial blood flow as assessed by stress positron emission tomography</atitle><jtitle>Journal of nuclear cardiology</jtitle><stitle>J. Nucl. Cardiol</stitle><addtitle>J Nucl Cardiol</addtitle><date>2017-06-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>961</spage><epage>974</epage><pages>961-974</pages><issn>1071-3581</issn><eissn>1532-6551</eissn><abstract>We examined whether regional improvement in stress myocardial blood flow (sMBF) following angiography-guided coronary revascularization depends on the existence of a perfusion defect on positron emission tomography (PET). Percent stenosis on coronary angiography often is the main factor when deciding whether to perform revascularization, but it does not reliably relate to maximum sMBF. PET is a validated method of assessing sMBF. 19 patients (79% M, 65 ± 12 years) underwent PET stress before and after revascularization (17 PCI, 2 CABG). Pre- and post-revascularization sMBF for each left ventricular quadrant (anterior, septal, lateral, and inferior) was stratified by the presence or absence of a baseline perfusion defect on PET and whether that region was revascularized. Intervention was performed on 40 of 76 quadrants. When a baseline perfusion defect existed in a region that was revascularized (n = 26), post-revascularization flow increased by 0.6 ± 0.7 cc/min/g (1.2 ± 0.4 vs 1.7 ± 0.8, P &lt; 0.001). When no defect existed but revascularization was performed (n = 14), sMBF did not change significantly (1.7 ± 0.3 vs 1.5 ± 0.4 cc/min/g, P = 0.16). In regions without a defect that were not revascularized (n = 29), sMBF did not significantly change (2.0 ± 0.6 vs 1.9 ± 0.7, P = 0.7). When a stress-induced perfusion defect exists on PET, revascularization improves sMBF in that region. When there is no such defect, sMBF shows no net change, whether or not intervention is performed in that area. PET stress may be useful for identifying areas of myocardium that could benefit from revascularization, and also areas in which intervention is unlikely to yield improvement in myocardial blood flow.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27021385</pmid><doi>10.1007/s12350-016-0442-2</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1071-3581
ispartof Journal of nuclear cardiology, 2017-06, Vol.24 (3), p.961-974
issn 1071-3581
1532-6551
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826674399
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink
subjects Aged
Blood Flow Velocity
Cardiology
Coronary Circulation
Coronary Stenosis - diagnostic imaging
Coronary Stenosis - physiopathology
Coronary Stenosis - surgery
Defects
Exercise Test - methods
Female
Humans
Imaging
Male
Medical imaging
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
myocardial blood flow
Myocardial Perfusion Imaging - methods
Nuclear Medicine
Original Article
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods
Positron emission tomography
Positron-Emission Tomography - methods
Radiology
Reproducibility of Results
revascularization
Sensitivity and Specificity
Tomography
Treatment Outcome
title The effect of coronary revascularization on regional myocardial blood flow as assessed by stress positron emission tomography
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T15%3A56%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20effect%20of%20coronary%20revascularization%20on%20regional%20myocardial%20blood%20flow%20as%20assessed%20by%20stress%20positron%20emission%20tomography&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20nuclear%20cardiology&rft.au=Bober,%20Robert%20M.&rft.date=2017-06-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=961&rft.epage=974&rft.pages=961-974&rft.issn=1071-3581&rft.eissn=1532-6551&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12350-016-0442-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1826674399%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1914770801&rft_id=info:pmid/27021385&rft_els_id=S1071358123065522&rfr_iscdi=true