routine clinical quantitative rest stress myocardial …...r version 3.1.0 (r foundation for...
Post on 24-Jul-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
J A C C : C A R D I O V A S C U L A R I M A G I N G V O L . 1 0 , N O . 5 , 2 0 1 7
ª 2 0 1 7 B Y T H E AM E R I C A N C O L L E G E O F C A R D I O L O G Y F O U N D A T I O N
P U B L I S H E D B Y E L S E V I E R
I S S N 1 9 3 6 - 8 7 8 X / $ 3 6 . 0 0
h t t p : / / d x . d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . j c m g . 2 0 1 6 . 0 9 . 0 1 9
Routine Clinical Quantitative RestStress Myocardial Perfusion forManaging Coronary Artery DiseaseClinical Relevance of Test-Retest Variability
Danai Kitkungvan, MD,a Nils P. Johnson, MD, MS,a Amanda E. Roby, PET, CNMT, RT(N),b
Monika B. Patel, MD,a Richard Kirkeeide, PHD,c K. Lance Gould, MDd
ABSTRACT
Fro
Mc
We
Te
Ho
Ho
Ath
Ph
an
rec
ap
pro
rel
Ma
OBJECTIVES Positron emission tomography (PET) quantifies stress myocardial perfusion (in cc/min/g) and coronary
flow reserve to guide noninvasively the management of coronary artery disease. This study determined their test-retest
precision within minutes and daily biological variability essential for bounding clinical decision-making or risk stratifi-
cation based on low flow ischemic thresholds or follow-up changes.
BACKGROUND Randomized trials of fractional flow reserve–guided percutaneous coronary interventions established
an objective, quantitative, outcomes-driven standard of physiological stenosis severity. However, pressure-derived
fractional flow reserve requires invasive coronary angiogram and was originally validated by comparison to
noninvasive PET.
METHODS The time course and test-retest precision of serial quantitative rest-rest and stress-stress global myocardial
perfusion by PETwithinminutes and days apart in the same patient were compared in 120 volunteers undergoing serial 708
quantitative PET perfusion scans using rubidium 82 (Rb-82) and dipyridamole stress with a 2-dimensional PET-computed
tomography scanner (GE DST 16) and University of Texas HeartSee software with our validated perfusion model.
RESULTS Test-retest methodological precision (coefficient of variance) for serial quantitative global myocardial
perfusion minutes apart is �10% (mean DSD at rest �0.09, at stress �0.23 cc/min/g) and for days apart is �21%
(mean DSD at rest �0.2, at stress �0.46 cc/min/g) reflecting added biological variability. Global myocardial perfusion at
8 min after 4-min dipyridamole infusion is 10% higher than at standard 4 min after dipyridamole.
CONCLUSIONS Test-retest methodological precision of global PET myocardial perfusion by serial rest or stress PET
minutes apart is �10%. Day-to-different-day biological plus methodological variability is �21%, thereby establishing
boundaries of variability on physiological severity to guide or follow coronary artery diseasemanagement. Maximum stress
increases perfusion and coronary flow reserve, thereby reducing potentially falsely low values mimicking ischemia.
(J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2017;10:565–77) © 2017 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
m the aDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine and Weatherhead PET Center for Preventing Atherosclerosis,
Govern Medical School and Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, Texas; bPET Imaging, Department of Medicine and
atherhead PET Center for Preventing Atherosclerosis, McGovern Medical School and Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston,
xas; cDepartment of Medicine and Weatherhead PET Center for Preventing Atherosclerosis, McGovern Medical School,
uston, Texas; and the dWeatherhead PET Center for Preventing and Reversing Atherosclerosis, McGovern Medical School,
uston, Texas. Dr. Johnson has received internal funding from the Weatherhead PET Center for Preventing and Reversing
erosclerosis; has received significant institutional research support from St. Jude Medical (for NCT02184117) and Volcano/
ilips Corporation (for NCT02328820), makers of intracoronary pressure and flow sensors; and has an institutional licensing
d consulting agreement with Boston Scientific for the smart minimum fractional flow reserve (FFR) algorithm. Dr. Gould has
eived internal funding from the Weatherhead PET Center for Preventing and Reversing Atherosclerosis; and is the 510(k)
plicant for CFR Quant (K113754) and HeartSee (K143664), software packages for cardiac positron emission tomography image
cessing and analysis, including absolute flow quantification. All other authors have reported that they have no
ationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
nuscript received April 26, 2016; revised manuscript received September 6, 2016, accepted September 8, 2016.
FIGUR
Solid h
tomog
CFR ¼
ABBR EV I A T I ON S
AND ACRONYMS
ANOVA = analysis of variance
CAD = coronary artery disease
CFR = coronary flow reserve
COV = coefficient of variance
ECG = electrocardiography
KS = Kolmogorov-Smirnov
LV = left ventricle
PET = positron emission
tomography
PRP = pressure rate product
RCA = right coronary artery
Kitkungvan et al. J A C C : C A R D I O V A S C U L A R I M A G I N G , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 5 , 2 0 1 7
Precision and Variability of Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion M A Y 2 0 1 7 : 5 6 5 – 7 7
566
P ositron emission tomography (PET)quantifies stress myocardial perfu-sion in units of cc/min/g and cor-
onary flow reserve (CFR) (1–3) asnoninvasive guides to management of coro-nary artery disease (CAD) paralleling indi-rect relative flow reserve of invasivepressure-derived fractional flow reserve(4,5) originally validated by comparison toPET (6). Therefore, their test-retest precisionand daily biological variability are essentialfor clinical decision-making based onthresholds of low myocardial perfusioncausing ischemia.
SEE PAGE 578
Despite the long history of dipyridamole stressoriginated by Gould et al. (7,8), we critically exam-ined our technology and biological variability ofstress perfusion and CFR to determine whethermethodology variability needed technical impro-vement or day-to-day biological variability werelimitations to guiding or following management ofCAD as recently reported for regadenoson (9).Therefore, this study aimed to establish the essentiallink between comprehensive quantification ofperfusion measurements and their variability that
E 1 Protocols for Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion Imaging
STRESS PET
PET 1
PET 1
PET 1
PET 1
PET 1
PE
39
PET 2
8-13 pair
8-14 pair
8-15 pair
8-16 pair
7-12 pair
4 min PET Imageor dipyridamole infusion
REST Dipyridamole PET
Minutes
-4 0 4 7 8 12
stress
eavy horizontal bars indicate 4 min of dipyridamole infusion. Num
raphy (PET) scans for timing protocols. Small parallel lines indica
coronary flow reserve.
sets bounds for clinical decision-making or riskstratification.
METHODS
From November 2014 to August 2015, subjects40 years or older were recruited at Weatherhead PETCenter for Preventing and Reversing Atherosclerosisof University of Texas Medical School. Writteninformed consent was obtained from volunteers(commonly with risk factors), patients referred forclinical PET who did not have insurance coverage, orclinic patients who desired PET follow-up.
Exclusion criteria included contraindication todipyridamole, pregnancy, active breastfeeding, clin-ical instability, and inability to undergo 2 PET pro-tocols (Figure 1) within 2 days to 3 weeks apart inwhich early-late sequences within minutes wererandomized before the first PET scan.CARDIAC PET ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS. Subjectswere instructed to fast for 4 h and to abstain fromcaffeine, theophylline, and cigarettes for at least 24 h.Cardiac PET used the Discovery ST 16-slice PET-computed tomography scanner (GE Healthcare,Waukesha, Wisconsin) in 2-dimensional mode aspreviously reported (2,3,7–12).
Emission images were obtained over 4 min atstarting intravenous injection of 30 to 50 mCi of
by PET Using Rb-82
T 2
34
32
47
20
PET 2
PET 2
PET 2
13 14 15 16
bers under each solid bar are the number of paired positron emission
te a time break in x-axis for different paired protocols.
FIGURE 2 Plot of Stress Perfusion (Flow) and CFR for Each of 1,344 Perfusion Pixels of LV
Plot determining unique, unequivocal color code for stress perfusion and CFR for each pixel that is back-projected onto coronary flow capacity
map with histogram for percentage of all pixels in LV in each color-coded range of stress flow and CFR of each pixel. For illustration, only
lateral views of stress flow and CFR are shown, and a single pixel is tracked through the pixel color-coding process. Quadrant mean perfusion
values are calculated as average of all pixels in that quadrant. Global perfusion is calculated as average of all pixel values in the LV.
CFR ¼ coronary flow reserve; LV ¼ left ventricle.
J A C C : C A R D I O V A S C U L A R I M A G I N G , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 5 , 2 0 1 7 Kitkungvan et al.M A Y 2 0 1 7 : 5 6 5 – 7 7 Precision and Variability of Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion
567
generator-produced rubidium 82 (Rb-82) (BraccoDiagnostics, Princeton, New Jersey). The first 2-minemission acquisition comprised arterial input images.The last 2-min emission acquisition comprisedmyocardial uptake images. Pharmacological stressused dipyridamole infusion (0.56 mg/kg) over 4 min(0.142 mg/kg/min).
An experienced PET cardiologist administereddipyridamole and monitored every patientthroughout imaging, followed by 75 mg of intrave-nous aminophylline. Angina was treated with intra-venous aminophylline, metoprolol, or sublingualnitroglycerin. Continuous heart rate, blood pressure,and 12-lead electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoringduring stress identified significant >1-mm ST-segment depression.
QUANTITATIVE PET ANALYSIS. Computed tomogra-phy scans for attenuation correction were acquiredbefore rest and after the last stress emission imagingat reduced radiation dose as previously reported(2,3,7–12). Coregistration was optimized for every
image by shifting PET to fit attenuation data andreconstructed as previously reported (10).
As previously reported (2,3,7–12), for each radialsegment of every short-axis slice, absolute myocardialperfusion (in cc/min/g) was quantified for each of 1,344pixels in the left ventricular (LV) image with a 5-pixelsmoothing noise reduction algorithm using HeartSeesoftware (University of Texas-Houston, Houston,Texas, FDA K14366) approximating reconstructedscanner resolution of 1.5-cm full width one-halfmaximum with filters. This software incorporates ourvalidated model for Rb-82 (13), reported by others to“have higher sensitivity for detection and localizationof abnormal flow” (14) than multicompartmentalmodels using time-activity curves derived from serialshort (15-s) noisy images. Optimal arterial inputs werecustomized for individual patients from among aorticand left atrial locations as previously reported todetermine rest and stress flow (15).
CFR was computed as stress-to-rest ratio for eachof 1,344 pixels, synonymous with myocardial perfu-sion reserve to emphasize physiological concepts.
TABLE 1 Patient Characteristics
Serial StressProtocol (n ¼ 89)
Serial RestProtocol (n ¼ 31)
Clinical characteristics
Age, yrs 58.5 � 9.9 56.3 � 9.7
BMI, kg/m2 29.2 � 5.2 27.9 � 4.8
Male 58 (65.2) 19 (61.3)
Hypertension 42 (47.2) 9 (29.0)
Dyslipidemia 61 (68.5) 23 (74.2)
Diabetes 11 (12.4) 2 (6.5)
Active smoking 5 (5.6) 2 (6.5)
Prior PCI 8 (9.0) 2 (6.5)
Prior CABG 2 (2.3) 2 (6.5)
Prior myocardial infarction 4 (4.5) 0 (0.0)
Symptoms before cardiac PET
Angina 0 (0.0) 1 (3.2)
Dyspnea 2 (2.3) 5 (16.1)
Medications
Statin 34 (38.2) 12 (38.7)
Antiplatelet 42 (47.2) 12 (38.7)
Beta-blocker 19 (21.4) 6 (19.4)
ACEI or ARB 31 (34.8) 6 (19.4)
Calcium-channel blocker 10 (11.2) 3 (9.7)
Diuretics 15 (16.7) 7 (22.6)
Nitrate 2 (2.3) 0 (0.0)
Values are mean � SD or n (%).
ACEI ¼ angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB ¼ angiotensin receptorblocker; BMI ¼ body mass index; CABG ¼ coronary artery bypass graft; PCI ¼percutaneous coronary intervention; PET ¼ positron emission tomography.
Kitkungvan et al. J A C C : C A R D I O V A S C U L A R I M A G I N G , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 5 , 2 0 1 7
Precision and Variability of Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion M A Y 2 0 1 7 : 5 6 5 – 7 7
568
Coronary flow capacity maps display stress perfusionand CFR for each pixel as a percentage of LV asillustrated in Figure 2, which maps each of 1,344 LVpixels with its stress perfusion and CFR value at itsregional location (12). The histogram distribution of1,344 pixel severities defined by both stress flow andCFR then provides a pixel-level analysis of the entirerange, size, and distribution of stress perfusion andCFR for assessing the effects of maximal or submax-imal stress. Global values are the average of 1,344pixels; quadrant values are averages of all pixelvalues (336) in nonoverlapping quadrants.
REST AND DIPYRIDAMOLE STRESS IMAGING
PROTOCOLS. Rest perfusion precision. Sequential rest-rest-stress PET perfusion imaging was performed at10-min intervals on day 1 and repeated 1 to 3 weekslater on day 2. The serial 10-min rest-rest scans quan-tified test-retest methodological precision formeasuring resting perfusion (in cc/min/g), whereasrepeat rest scans on different days assessed dailybiological plus methodological variability in the samepatient.
Stress perfusion precision. Quantifying test-retestprecision of stress perfusion (in cc/min/g) and CFRrequires stable constant stress perfusion for
approximately 15 min to allow serial acquisition ofstress perfusion images. Because the time course ofmyocardial hyperemia after standard 4-min dipyr-idamole infusion has not been defined, the protocolsshown in Figure 1 were implemented in repeat pairedPET studies in the same patient at minutes and daysintervals.
After dipyridamole injection starting at time 0, thefirst RB-82 generator activation occurred at 7 or 8 min(day 1 PET 1) and again at 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 min onday 2 (day 1 PET 2). Radiotracer delivery, PET scanneracquisition, image processing, and quantitativeperfusion software remained the same for all PETscans. Subjects returned for the second PET scan (day2 PET 1 and PET 2) within 3 weeks with similar orrandomized different time intervals.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. Precision and variabilitywere determined for global, average quadrant, andindividual pixel values of stress flow and CFR.R version 3.1.0 (R Foundation for StatisticalComputing, Vienna, Austria) and standard summarystatistical tests were used. Applicable tests were2-tailed, and p < 0.05 was considered statisticallysignificant. Linear regression is reported between restperfusion and rest pressure rate product (PRP).Analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared characteris-tics among timing protocols. Paired or unpaired Stu-dent t test was used to evaluate continuous variableswhere appropriate. The Pitman-Morgan F test wasused to test for differences in variability of stressperfusion between 2 groups. An ANOVA model withmixed effects (to account for repeated measurementsfrom the same subject) compared absolute flow andCFR among various timing sequences. Because anoverall ANOVA p value was significant, a Tukey all-pair comparison was applied to determine whichtiming conditions provided a different response. Tocompare the histogram distribution between groupsof stress perfusion and CFR for each of 1344 pixels aspercentage of LV in color-coded ranges of coronaryflow capacity, we used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS)test for differences in histogram distribution.
RESULTS
One hundred twenty subjects underwent 708 PETquantitative PET perfusion scans. Thirty-one subjectsunderwent rest-rest-stress protocol on day 1 and 1 to 3weeks later on day 2. Eighty-nine subjects underwentrest-stress-stress protocol on days 1 and 2. The me-dian between paired PETs was 16 days (mean 22 � 15days) with no change in medical status or medica-tions. Baseline characteristics of subjects are listed inTable 1. Four day-2 PET sessions were not obtained
FIGURE 3 Stress PET Images of Relative Myocardial Uptake of Rb-82
(A) Stress PET images of relative myocardial uptake of Rb-82 after standard 4-min infusion of dipyridamole scaled by color bar from 100% for
maximum relative uptake (white), with red being next highest, progressively graded to yellow, green, and blue-purple for severe relative
defect as previously reported (2,3,7–12). Quadrant views of LV follow generic coronary artery distributions indicated by shadow overlays.
(B) Stress perfusion (in cc/min/g). (C) Coronary flow reserve. (D) Coronary flow capacity map integrating both stress flow and CFR into
a single 4-view display of the LV. See text for color-coded regional severity as percentage of LV based on color-coded steps in Figure 2.
AV ¼ atrioventricular node artery; D1 ¼ first diagonal; D2 ¼ second diagonal; LAD ¼ left anterior descending; LCx ¼ left circumflex;
OM1 ¼ first obtuse marginal; OM2 ¼ second obtuse marginal; PET ¼ positron emission tomography; RCA ¼ right coronary artery; RI ¼ ramus
intermedius; other abbreviations as in Figure 2.
J A C C : C A R D I O V A S C U L A R I M A G I N G , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 5 , 2 0 1 7 Kitkungvan et al.M A Y 2 0 1 7 : 5 6 5 – 7 7 Precision and Variability of Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion
569
because subjects withdrew, and 5 PET sessions wereexcluded because of technical issues of scanneroperations or settings, intravenous infusion of Rb-82or dipyridamole, or venous abnormalities that inva-lidated arterial input.
Because definitive regional quantitative myocar-dial perfusion by PET for guiding management ofCAD is not widely recognized, Figure 3 illustratesrelative stress myocardial perfusion images in com-plex CAD in which angiograms did not provideguidance for revascularization compared to medicalmanagement.
The patient shown in Figure 3 is a 65-year-old manwith risk factors and a right coronary artery(RCA) stent inserted in 2009 who was referredfor PET because of abnormal stress test andangiogram showing in-stent RCA occlusion with
distal collaterals, moderate stenosis of the first andsecond diagonal branches, and moderate stenosisof the first and second obtuse marginal branches.
Detailed review of images for this patient providesinsight into diffuse and focal physiological severityunfamiliar to most readers and its precision. Restingrelative perfusion images showed a basal inferiortransmural scar composing 10% of the LV (notshown). Relative stress perfusion images show a se-vere defect involving 22% of inferior LV in the RCAdistribution, indicating large border zones of viablemyocardium with reduced CFR composing an addi-tional 14% of LV (Figure 3A). ECG-gated perfusionimages showed ejection fraction of 63% at rest and67% during dipyridamole stress, with stress-inducedinferior hypokinesis without angina or ECG changes.In view of multiple stenosis by angiogram, relative
FIGURE 4 Serial PET of Same Patient With Complex CAD in 2 of 4 Quadrant Views
Test-retest precision of serial stress quantitative PET perfusion measured within minutes and on different days for day-to-day biological
variability. CAD ¼ coronary artery disease; PET ¼ positron emission tomography.
Kitkungvan et al. J A C C : C A R D I O V A S C U L A R I M A G I N G , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 5 , 2 0 1 7
Precision and Variability of Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion M A Y 2 0 1 7 : 5 6 5 – 7 7
570
images do not identify or quantify the extent of“balanced stenosis,” low flow ischemia, or diffusedisease essential for management decisions.
Quantitative stress perfusion (in cc/min/g) wasmoderately reduced diffusely and severely reduced ininferior, inferolateral, and inferoseptal quadrants ofLV according to the color bar scale for stress perfusion(flow) (Figure 3B). All quantitative color bars arecoded red for 125 healthy young volunteers youngerthan 40 years without risk factors; orange for healthysubjects with risk factors but no known CAD; yellowfor patients with known CAD with or without revas-cularization; blue for patients with stress perfusiondefects, angina, and/or >1-mm ST-segment depres-sion on ECG during dipyridamole stress; and green fora stress defect and either angina or ST-segmentdepression but not both, as previously reported(2,3,7–12). CFR outside the stress defect is mildly tomoderately reduced diffusely but above low flowischemic levels reflecting diffuse, nonischemic coro-nary atherosclerosis in those regions (Figure 3C). Inthe stress defect, CFR is severely reduced inferiorly tobelow resting perfusion in a small segment, indi-cating myocardial steal (dark blue) associated withcollaterals beyond the RCA chronic total occlusion.
These 2 primary flow metrics, stress perfusion (incc/min/g) and CFR, completely define physiologicalseverity but are complex to interpret independently.Accordingly, as previously reported (2,3,7–12),they are integrated into a coronary flow capacitymap (Figure 3D) with color-coded pixels for thesame ranges of patient groups according to the2-dimensional plot in Figure 2. Coronary flow capacityis severely reduced inferiorly in 26% of the LV, ofwhich 10% is transmural scar and 14% viable borderzones with reduced flow capacity. The remaining LVoutside border zones of the inferior stress defect(green) has mild diffusely reduced coronary flow ca-pacity (yellow) due to diffuse coronary atheroscle-rosis but is adequate above ischemic low flow. Thereferring cardiologist and consulting PET cardiologyfaculty concluded that medical treatment was a validoption without bypass surgery because of: 1) reducedbut adequate coronary flow capacity withoutischemia in left anterior descending coronary arteryand left circumflex distributions; 2) collaterals toapproximately 16% of viable inferior border zonesadequate for the patient’s daily activities withoutangina; 3) absence of angina or heart failure; and 4)normal rest and stress ejection fraction.
FIGURE 5 Serial PET in Single Quadrant Views of 2 Different Patients
PET from a healthy young volunteer with high coronary flow capacity and a patient with risk factors only and mildly reduced coronary flow
capacity, illustrating test-retest comparison of serial stress quantitative PET perfusion measured within minutes for a wide range of perfusion
values. PET ¼ positron emission tomography.
TABLE 2 Minute-to-Minute and Day-to-Day Test-Retest Precision of Rest Perfusion in
the Same Patient
Rest PET Serial No.Mean Rest,cc/min/g Bias SD of D
Paired Studentt Test p Value
Pitman-Morganp Value
COVRest
Rest 1 day 1 0.87 � 0.22
Rest 2 day 1 0.86 � 0.19
Rest 1 vs. rest 2* 0.001 �0.093 0.93 0.06 10.7%
Rest day 1–rest day 2 0.07 �0.20 0.13 21.1%
Rest flow minutes D vs. days D <0.001
Values are mean � SD unless otherwise indicated. Pitman-Morgan F test for coefficient of variance (COV) ¼ SD ofdifferences/mean of the 2 measurements. *Rest 1 and rest 2 acquired 10 min apart.
PET ¼ positron emission tomography.
J A C C : C A R D I O V A S C U L A R I M A G I N G , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 5 , 2 0 1 7 Kitkungvan et al.M A Y 2 0 1 7 : 5 6 5 – 7 7 Precision and Variability of Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion
571
For clinical reliability, this comprehensive quanti-fication of complex physiological severity of focal anddiffuse CAD is highly reproducible, as shown by serialPETs shown in lateral and inferior views for simplicityin Figure 4. Subjects were studied over the full range,from low rest perfusion or severe stress impairmentto high coronary flow capacity in healthy young vol-unteers with no risk factors (Figure 5). These exam-ples also illustrate that stress perfusion at 13 min washigher than at 8 min and at 15 min was lower than at 8min (Figure 5).
TEST-RETEST PRECISION IN THE SAME PATIENT OF
REST PERFUSION. Table 2 lists test-retest precision ofserial resting perfusion (in cc/min/g) over minutes andday-to-day variability in the same patient. For same-day rest 1–rest 2 perfusion minutes apart in the samepatient, the SD of differences was �0.093 cc/min/g,and the coefficient of variance (COV) was 10.7% (0.093of 0.87). For the day-to-different-day difference in restperfusion in the same patient, the SD of differenceswas 0.2 and COV was 21.1%, significantly higher byPitman-Morgan F test (p < 0.001).
Therefore, the 21.1% variability observed onrepeat rest perfusion measurements on differentdays is partly due to 10.7% imprecision of method-ology with comparable additional contributionfrom biological variability. Resting perfusion waspreviously reported to have a modest direct linearrelation to PRP (11,12). Similarly, in this study restperfusion and rest PRP were linearly related: rest
TABLE 3 Stress Myocardial Perfusion in Paired Sequential PET at Minute Intervals After Baseline PET
No. ofStudies
Rest Flow,cc/min/g
Stress Flow (cc/min/g) CFR
Stress Flow PET 1 Stress Flow PET 2 p ValueDFlow Stress2–Stress 1 CFR PET 1 CFR PET 2 p Value
DCFR Stress2–Stress 1
7- to 12-min pair 39 0.90 � 0.35 2.07 � 0.61 2.31 � 0.68 <0.001 0.24 � 0.29 2.43 � 0.59 2.72 � 0.66 <0.001 0.28 � 0.33
8- to 13-min pair 34 0.87 � 0.33 2.13 � 0.58 2.38 � 0.59 <0.001 0.25 � 0.30 2.64 � 0.73 2.92 � 0.65 <0.001 0.29 � 0.38
8- to 14-min pair 32 0.84 � 0.26 2.12 � 0.47 2.21 � 0.52 0.018 0.09 � 0.21 2.65 � 0.64 2.75 � 0.67 0.063 0.10 � 0.29
8- to 15-min pair 47 0.93 � 0.23 2.39 � 0.57 2.39 � 0.57 0.90 0.02 � 0.26 2.63 � 0.50 2.64 � 0.50 0.70 0.02 � 0.29
8- to 16-min pair 20 0.87 � 0.31 2.04 � 0.70 1.93 � 0.57 0.14 –0.12 � 0.34 2.48 � 0.76 2.33 � 0.64 0.16 –0.15 � 0.45
Values are mean� SD unless otherwise indicated. Bold indicates a significant difference between the paired PETs in those rows. Bold italics indicates that the 8- to 15-min paired PETs differed by only 0.02�0.26, that is not significant and reflects test-retest precision.
CFR ¼ coronary flow reserve; PET ¼ positron emission tomography.
FIGURE 6 Time Co
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
7 or 8 mi
R
Rat
io t
o 7
or
8 M
inu
te F
low
100%
Changes in stress flow
PET 2/PET 1 at 7 and 8
indicate 1 SD.
Kitkungvan et al. J A C C : C A R D I O V A S C U L A R I M A G I N G , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 5 , 2 0 1 7
Precision and Variability of Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion M A Y 2 0 1 7 : 5 6 5 – 7 7
572
PRP ¼ 3,565 � rest perfusion þ 4,196 and R2 ¼ 0.25,indicating that PRP accounted for 25% of variation inrest perfusion.
However, differences between day 1 and day 2PETs in resting heart rate (1 � 6 beats/min), systolicblood pressure (3 � 11 mm Hg), and diastolic bloodpressure (0 � 6 mm Hg) were small. In contrast,some patients may have greater differences inpressure rate product because of anxiety, medica-tions, caffeine, and labile blood pressure alteringresting perfusion.
urse of Stress Perfusion During Dipyridamole Stress
n 12 min 13 min 14 min 15 min 16 min
b-82 Injection Timing After Dipyridamole Infusion
110% 109% 103% 102% 94%
(in cc/min/g) at different time intervals expressed as ratio of
min.Heavy solid red horizontal bars indicate average. Thin red bars
TIME COURSE OF MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION AFTER
4-MIN DIPYRIDAMOLE INFUSION. With time 0 forstarting the standard 4-min dipyridamole infusionand stress PET 1 as the reference, stress perfusion ofPET 2 at 12, 13, or 14 min was significantly higherthan PET 1 at 7 or 8 min; was highest at 12 and 13min; and decreased at 14, 15, and 16 min with nosignificant difference between perfusion at 8 versus15 min (Table 3). Stress perfusion at each timeinterval as a ratio to perfusion at minute 7 or 8is graphed in Figure 6, which show a peak of 1.10at minute 12 to 13 falling thereafter to below1.0 at minute 16.
Stress perfusion changes significantly over timeafter the 4-min dipyridamole injection, with a globalp < 0.001 by the mixed-effects ANOVA model forstress flow, accounting for repeated measurements inthe same subjects. Because the global ANOVA test issignificant, pairwise comparisons at different timeintervals can be compared using the Tukey test formultiple comparisons. Table 4 lists the Tukey test formultiple comparisons of differences among PET 1–PET 2 stress perfusion (cc/min/g) for the row minusthe column for minute intervals between stress PET1 and stress PET 2. For example, the 12-min dipyr-idamole perfusion is 0.243 cc/min/g higher than the8-min dipyridamole perfusion (p ¼ 0.0044). The16-min perfusion is 0.362 cc/min/g lower than the12-min dipyridamole perfusion (p # 0.02). All bolddifferences are significant with p # 0.022; all othervalues (italics or roman) are not significantlydifferent.
TEST-RETEST PRECISION IN THE SAME PATIENT OF
STRESS PERFUSION. The subjects with 2 8- to 15-minstress pairs provide the most compelling analysis ofpure methodological test-retest precision of stressperfusion. For 15 to 8 min PETs on day 1, the meandifference was 0.02 � 0.26 cc/min/g with COV of10.8% (0.259 of 2.393) (Table 5). For 15- to 8-min PETs
TABLE 4 Tukey Test for Multiple Comparisons of Differences Among PET 1–PET 2 Stress
Perfusion (cc/min/g) for the Row Minus the Column for Minute Intervals Between Stress
P1 and Stress PET 2
Stress Flow D 7 8 12 13 14 15
8 0.014 p £ 0.022
12 0.256 0.243 p < 0.20
13 0.229 0.216 �0.027
14 0.104 0.091 �0.152 �0.125
15 0.042 0.029 �0.214 �0.187 �0.062
16 �0.106 �0.119 L0.362 L0.335 �0.210 �0.148
All bold differences between PET pairs defined by the columns and rows are significant with p # 0.022 indicatingthat their differences listed in the table are significant where a positive sign indicates a higher value on PET2 thanPET1 and a negative sign indicates a lower value on PET2 than on PET1. Outside the bold cells, no differences aresignificant; italics indicate a substantial negative difference with a lower value on PET2 that, however, is notsignificantly different.
PET ¼ positron emission tomography.
TABLE 5 Minute-to-Minute and Day-to-Day Test-Retest Precision of Stress Perfusion in
Same Patient
Stress PET SequenceMean D,cc/min/g
p Value by PairedStudent t Test
Pitman-Morganp Value COV
Day 1 15- to 8-min PET 0.02 � 0.26 0.74 10.6%
Day 2 15- to 8-min PET �0.03 � 0.23 0.49 9.6%
Day 1–day 2 for 8-min PET 0.02 � 0.46 0.81 19.3%
Day 1–day 2 for 15-min PET 0.08 � 0.50 0.48 20.7%
Stress flow minutes D vs. days D #0.011
Coefficient of variance (COV) ¼ SD of differences/mean of the 2 measurements.
PET ¼ positron emission tomography.
J A C C : C A R D I O V A S C U L A R I M A G I N G , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 5 , 2 0 1 7 Kitkungvan et al.M A Y 2 0 1 7 : 5 6 5 – 7 7 Precision and Variability of Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion
573
on day 2, the difference was –0.03 � 0.23 with COV of9.6% (0.23 of 2.393).
The day-to-different-day test-retest reproducibilityof stress perfusion for day 1–day 2 in the same patientfor the 15-min PETs (Table 5) had COV of 19% to 21%that is significantly greater than minute differencesbetween PET 1–PET 2 having COV of 9.6% to 10.6%, asignificant difference with Pitman-Morgan p # 0.011.Therefore, daily variability on serial stress-stressperfusion measurements is due to approximately�10% methodological imprecision with an additionalcomparable component of biological variability. Therest day 1–day 2 differences (SD of D ¼ �0.10) (Table 2)were smaller than the stress day 1–day 2 difference (SDof D ¼ �0.50) (Table 5) with Pitman-Morgan p < 0.001but the COVs were similar, 21% for both rest and stressflows. COV for minute and day differences for CFR aresimilar to those for stress perfusion.
Table 6 lists minute-to-minute precision and day-to-day variability for regional average quadrantvalues of stress perfusion and CFR that are compa-rable to global values because both are determinedfrom the primary 1,344 pixel flows averaged for336 pixels in each quadrant and 1,344 pixels forthe entire LV.
Figure 7 illustrates the clinical relevance ofmaximal versus submaximal stress. Relative stressimages show little difference (Figures 7A and 7B).With submaximal stress, global stress perfusion was1.5 cc/min/g and CFR was 1.8 compared to maximumstress with global stress perfusion of 2.2 cc/min/g andCFR of 2.7.
Submaximal stress lowers stress perfusion andCFR, with a larger percentage of LV having lowerflows by pixel colored percentage of LV, which mightbe interpreted as abnormal for both regional anddiffuse CAD (Figures 7C and 7D). Maximal stress in-creases flows into higher ranges of color-codedperfusion, thereby reducing apparent severitycompared to submaximal stress and hence reducingpotential false-positive results due to inadequatestress. Therefore, submaximum stress (Figure 7C)erroneously suggests more severe focal and diffusedisease (yellow and green) than true coronary flowcapacity with maximal stress (red and orange)(Figure 7D).
In addition to comparable precision for globaland regional quadrants, Figure 8 shows mean indi-vidual pixel distribution of stress perfusion bycomparing histogram distribution of all 1,344 perfu-sion pixels in LV for all serial PET histograms ac-quired within minutes. There is no difference inpixel distributions in the 2 histograms by KS statistic(KS ¼ 0.06; p ¼ 0.30).
However, in Figure 9, the mean histogram of 1,344pixel distribution for all subjects with submaximumstress is significantly different than for all subjectswith maximum stress (KS statistic ¼ 0.18; p <
0.0001). Submaximal stress incurs a higher percent-age of LV in the middle perfusion ranges (yellow andorange) and a lower percentage of LV in the highestrange of perfusion (red) compared to maximal stresswith a lower percentage of LV in middle ranges andgreatest percent of LV in the highest range ofperfusion. Therefore, submaximum stress causinglower stress perfusion (yellow) may be mis-interpreted as showing diffuse CAD, small vesseldisease, or even ischemia compared to higherperfusion with maximum stress that in some pa-tients may bracket the low flow ischemic thresholdas shown in Figure 7.
DISCUSSION
Test-retest methodological precision of serialmyocardial perfusion in the same patient on serialimaging minutes apart without daily biological or
TABLE 6 Minute-to-Minute and Day-to-Day Precision of SP and CFR by LV Quadrant
PET Stress Sequence
Anterior Quadrant Average Inferior Quadrant Average Lateral Quadrant Average Septal Quadrant Average
DSD p Value COV DSD p Value COV DSD p Value COV DSD p Value COV
8- to 15-min SP 0.26 0.70 11% 0.27 0.60 12% 0.21 1.00 9% 0.28 0.50 12%
8- to 15-min CFR 0.31 0.60 11% 0.32 0.90 12% 0.24 1.00 9% 0.31 0.40 12%
Day 1–day 2 SP 0.50 0.50 20% 0.49 0.70 22% 0.49 0.40 19% 0.49 0.50 21%
Day 1–day 2 CFR 0.57 0.70 21% 0.49 0.50 19% 0.46 0.30 18% 0.52 0.20 20%
Coefficient of variance (COV) ¼ SD of differences/mean of the 2 measurements.
CFR ¼ coronary flow reserve; LV ¼ left ventricle; p ¼ p value by paired Student t test; PET ¼ positron emission tomography; DSD ¼ standard deviation of the difference in paired PETs; SP ¼ stressperfusion.
Kitkungvan et al. J A C C : C A R D I O V A S C U L A R I M A G I N G , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 5 , 2 0 1 7
Precision and Variability of Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion M A Y 2 0 1 7 : 5 6 5 – 7 7
574
intersubject variability is approximately �10%,accounting for about one-half of the approximately�20% day-to-day variability due to added biologicalvariability. Our results show that myocardial perfu-sion is maximal at 8 min after completing the 4-mindipyridamole infusion, averaging 10% higher than
FIGURE 7 Relative Stress Perfusion Images of a Patient With Subm
(A) Relative stress images showing a small, mild-to-moderate, basal ante
mild-to-moderate, basal inferolateral defect in the distal left circumflex
defects are slightly worse on maximal stress, increasing from 7% to 10%
flow capacity map combining both stress perfusion (in cc/min/g) and CFR
stress (D). Submaximum stress (C) erroneously suggests more severe foc
capacity with maximal stress (D) (orange and red). CFR ¼ coronary flow
perfusion imaging at the standard 4 min after dipyr-idamole. For some patients with CAD severity nearthe low flow ischemic threshold, this 10% increasedstress flow may substantially change the relativeimportance of focal and diffuse CAD for integratedphysiological severity as illustrated in Figure 7.
aximum Stress and Maximum Stress
rior stress defect in a small diagonal branch distribution and a small,
distribution, both confirmed by angiogram. (B) Small stress relative
of the left ventricle below 60% of maximum. However, the coronary
with submaximal stress (C) is substantially improved with maximal
al and diffuse disease (yellow and green) than true coronary flow
reserve.
FIGURE 8 Methodological Histogram Reproducibility
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Severe Moderate Mild Minimal Good
Fra
ctio
n o
f L
eft
Ven
tric
le
Young Healthy Volunteers
Minimally Reduced
Mildly Reduced
Moderately Reduced
Severely Reduced
PET 1
PET 2
Histograms of the average fractions of left ventricle in color-coded severity ranges of coronary flow capacity of 2 serial stress PETs acquired
minutes apart accounting for all 1,344 pixels in each PET. PET ¼ positron emission tomography.
J A C C : C A R D I O V A S C U L A R I M A G I N G , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 5 , 2 0 1 7 Kitkungvan et al.M A Y 2 0 1 7 : 5 6 5 – 7 7 Precision and Variability of Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion
575
PRIOR LITERATURE. Minute-to-minute methodolog-ical precision of quantitative myocardial stressperfusion by PET has not been previously reported.Our day-to-day variability of dipyridamole stressperfusion compares with day-to-day variability in ourregadenoson study (9).
FIGURE 9 Histogram Differences Between Maximum and Submaxim
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Severe Moderate
Fra
ctio
n o
f L
eft
Ven
tric
le
Young Healthy Volunteers
Minimally Reduced
Mildly Reduced
Moderately Reduced
Severely Reduced
Submaximum Stress
Histograms of the average fractions of left ventricle in color-coded seve
submaximum (dashed line) and maximum (solid line) vasodilator stress
CLINICAL RELEVANCE. Our reported low stress flowischemic threshold of 0.9 cc/min/g is the stress flowthat maximizes the area under the receiver-operatingcharacteristic curve (98%), predicting ischemiadefined as significant regional stress defect with ECGdepression >1 mm or moderate-to-severe angina
um Stress
Mild Minimal Good
Maximum Stress
rity ranges of coronary flow capacity for 2 serial PETs with
obtained minutes apart. PET ¼ positron emission tomography.
PERSPECTIVES
COMPETENCY IN MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE:
Personalized medical management increasingly
depends on complex quantitative measurements
integrated with traditional history, examination, blood
tests, functional testing, or visually interpreted images.
For laboratory testing, the test-retest precision and
biological variability are well defined and indeed are
criteria for laboratory accreditation. However, for most
cardiac imaging, particularly quantitative myocardial
perfusion, this systematic, objective, definitive mea-
surement of test-retest methodology precision and
day-to-day biological variability are rarely determined
because of the time, expense, and complexity involved
in doing so, replaced with an emotional bias that “our
methods are the best,—are adequate,—are satisfactory
for our purposes.”As quantitativemyocardial perfusion
increasingly guides management of CAD for optimal
personalized outcomes, this study sets the standard for
variability of quantitative perfusion to guide invasive
procedures that may help or harm our patients: �10%
test-retest methodology precision plus �10% biolog-
ical day-to-day biological variability for �20% total
variability on repeat measurements on different days
for severity thresholds or after changes to guide man-
agement of CAD.
TRANSLATIONAL OUTLOOK: For guiding clinical
management, quantitative myocardial perfusion
imaging needs validation by its integration with
management to predict personalized optimal out-
comes, which is the greatest benefit with the least
harm based on some objective evidence-based,
threshold, or risk-to-benefit balance documented for
the size and severity of quantitative abnormalities.
However, measurement variability profoundly affects
correlation with subsequent MACE and, hence,
optimal management based on MACE predictions. This
study on the “mundane” methodology of quantitative
myocardial perfusion is the essential link between
comprehensive integration of all myocardial perfusion
measurements, their variability, and their bounds for
predicting MACE or for clinical decision-making
affected by measured variability. It provides the
essential technical basis for variability-dependent,
evidenced-based prediction of MACE, which requires
different future studies.
Kitkungvan et al. J A C C : C A R D I O V A S C U L A R I M A G I N G , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 5 , 2 0 1 7
Precision and Variability of Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion M A Y 2 0 1 7 : 5 6 5 – 7 7
576
requiring aminophylline reversal (11,12). Thisthreshold of 0.9 cc/min/g reflects a high probability ofischemia during dipyridamole stress in a large groupof patients, including methodology and day-to-daybiological variability in the same patient and be-tween different patients (11,12). The methodologyplus biological variability of �20% indicates that fortrue flow of 0.9 cc/min/g, repeated measurementswould give a range of flows between 0.9 � 20% or 0.72to 1.08, averaging 0.9 cc/min/g.
Therefore, day-to-day variability of �20% does notnegate this threshold but rather reinforces its validitywithin objective probability bounds, which has notbeen previously demonstrated for coronary bloodflow. The �10% due to methodology and the added10% due to biological variability leave somewhatlimited opportunity for further improvement,thereby defining the probability bounds formeasuring low perfusion (in cc/min/g) as the ischemicthreshold to guide, follow, or risk-stratify CADmanagement.
STUDY LIMITATIONS. Although data are from a sin-gle experienced center, our results exemplify a stan-dard for variability of routine quantitative myocardialperfusion imaging by PET to guide or follow CADmanagement. The total radiation dose for 2 3-PETsequences was 16 mSv, comparable to an averageTc-99m sestamibi rest stress study (16).
CONCLUSIONS
Methodological test-retest precision of serial quanti-tative myocardial perfusion by PET within minutesapart in the same patient is �10% and days apartis �20% due to added biological variability, there-by establishing the boundaries of variability for phys-iological severity to guide or follow CADmanagement.Therefore, this study provides an essential link be-tween comprehensive quantification of perfusionmeasurements and their variability that set the boundsfor clinical decision-making or risk stratificationaffected by measurement variability.
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Dr. K. LanceGould, Weatherhead PET Center for Preventing andReversing Atherosclerosis, McGovern Medical School,University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston,6431 Fannin Street, Room MSB 4.256, Houston,Texas 77030. E-mail: k.lance.gould@uth.tmc.edu.
J A C C : C A R D I O V A S C U L A R I M A G I N G , V O L . 1 0 , N O . 5 , 2 0 1 7 Kitkungvan et al.M A Y 2 0 1 7 : 5 6 5 – 7 7 Precision and Variability of Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion
577
RE F E RENCE S
1. Taqueti VR, Hachamovitch R, Murthy VL, et al.Global coronary flow reserve is associated withadverse cardiovascular events independently ofluminal angiographic severity, and modifies theeffect of early revascularization. Circulation 2015;131:19–27.
2. Gould KL, Johnson NP, Kaul S, et al. Patientselection for elective revascularization to reducemyocardial infarction and mortality: new lessonsfrom randomized trials, coronary physiology, andstatistics. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8:e003099.
3. Gould KL, Johnson NP, Bateman TM, et al.Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coro-nary artery disease: role of CFR, FFR, and PETimaging in revascularization decision-making.J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:1639–53.
4. van Nunen LX, Zimmermann FM, Tonino PA,et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiographyfor guidance of PCI in patients with multivesselcoronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-upof a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;386:1853–60.
5. De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NH, et al., FAME 2Trial Investigators. Fractional flow reserve-guidedPCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl JMed 2014;371:1208–17.
6. De Bruyne B, Baudhuin T, Melin JA, et al. Cor-onary flow reserve calculated from pressuremeasurements in humans. Validation with positron
emission tomography. Circulation 1994;89:1013–22.
7. Gould KL, Westt JR, Hamilton GW. Noninvasiveassessment of coronary stenoses by myocardialimaging during coronary vasodilation. II. Clinicalmethodology and feasibility. Am J Cardiol 1978;41:279–89.
8. Gould KL, Goldstein RA, Mullani NA, et al.Noninvasive assessment of coronary stenoses bymyocardial perfusion imaging during pharmaco-logic coronary vasodilation. V. Detection of 47%diameter coronary stenosis with intravenous13NH4þ and emission computed tomography inintact dogs. Am J Cardiol 1979;43:200–8.
9. Johnson NP, Gould KL. Regadenoson versusdipyridamole hyperemia for cardiac positronemission tomography (PET) imaging. J Am CollCardiol Img 2015;8:438–47.
10. Gould KL, Pan T, Loghin C, et al. Frequentdiagnostic errors in cardiac PET-CT due tomisregistration of CT attenuation and emissionPET images: a definitive analysis of causes, con-sequences and corrections. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1112–21.
11. Johnson NP, Gould KL. Physiological basis forangina and ST-segment change: PET-verifiedthresholds of quantitative stress myocardialperfusion and coronary flow reserve. J Am CollCardiol Img 2011;4:990–8.
12. Johnson NP, Gould KL. Integrating noninvasiveabsolute flow, coronary flow reserve, and ischemicthresholds into a comprehensive map of physio-logic severity. J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2012;5:430–40.
13. Yoshida K, Mullani N, Gould KL. Coronaryflow and flow reserve by positron emission to-mography simplified for clinical application usingRb-82 or N-13 ammonia. J Nucl Med 1996;37:1701–12.
14. deKemp RA, Yoshinaga K, Beanlands RSB. Will3-dimensional PET-CT enable the routine quanti-fication of myocardial blood flow? J Nucl Cardiol2007;14:380–97.
15. Vasquez AF, Johnson NP, Gould KL. Variationin quantitative myocardial perfusion due to arterialinput selection. J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2013;6:559–68.
16. Jerome SD, Tilkemeier PL, Farrell MB, Shaw LJ.Nationwide laboratory adherence to myocardialperfusion imaging radiation dose reduction prac-tices: a report from the Intersocietal AccreditationCommission data repository. J Am Coll Cardiol Img2015;8:1170–6.
KEY WORDS coronary artery disease, PETimaging, quantitative myocardial perfusion,vasodilator stress
top related