MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2024
Prognostic value of myocardial flow reserve vs corrected myocardial flow reserve in patients without obstructive coronary artery disease.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Huck Daniel M, Weber Brittany N, Brown Jenifer M, Lopez Diana, Hainer Jon, Blankstein Ron, Dorbala Sharmila, Divakaran Sanjay, Di Carli Marcelo F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Myocardial flow reserve (MFR) by positron emission tomography (PET) is a validated measure of cardiovascular risk. Elevated resting rate pressure product (RPP = heart rate x systolic blood pressure) can cause high resting myocardial blood flow (MBF), resulting in reduced MFR despite normal/near-normal peak stress MBF. When resting MBF is high, it is not known if RPP-corrected MFR (MFRcorrected) helps reclassify CV risk. We aimed to study this question in patients without obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD).
METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients referred for rest/stress cardiac PET at our center from 2006 to 2020. Patients with abnormal perfusion (summed stress score >3) or prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were excluded. MFRcorrected was defined as stress MBF/corrected rest MBF where corrected rest MBF = rest MBF x 10,000/RPP. The primary outcome was major cardiovascular events (MACE): cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Associations of MFR and MFRcorrected with MACE were assessed using unadjusted and adjusted Cox regression.
RESULTS: 3276 patients were followed for a median of 7 (IQR 3-12) years. 1685 patients (51%) had MFR <2.0, and of those 366 (22%) had an MFR ≥2.0 after RPP correction. MFR <2.0 was associated with an increased absolute risk of MACE (HR 2.24 [1.79-2.81], P < 0.0001). Among patients with MFR <2.0, the risk of MACE was not statistically different between patients with an MFRcorrected ≥2.0 compared with those with MFRcorrected <2.0 (1.9% vs 2.3% MACE/year, HR 0.84 [0.63-1.13], P = 0.26) even after adjustment for confounders (P = 0.66).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients without overt obstructive CAD and MFR< 2.0, there was no significant difference in cardiovascular risk between patients with discordant (≥2.0) and concordant (<2) MFR following RPP correction. This suggests that RPP-corrected MFR may not consistently provide accurate risk stratification in patients with normal perfusion and MFR <2.0. Stress MBF and uncorrected MFR should be reported to more reliably convey cardiovascular risk beyond perfusion results.
METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients referred for rest/stress cardiac PET at our center from 2006 to 2020. Patients with abnormal perfusion (summed stress score >3) or prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were excluded. MFRcorrected was defined as stress MBF/corrected rest MBF where corrected rest MBF = rest MBF x 10,000/RPP. The primary outcome was major cardiovascular events (MACE): cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Associations of MFR and MFRcorrected with MACE were assessed using unadjusted and adjusted Cox regression.
RESULTS: 3276 patients were followed for a median of 7 (IQR 3-12) years. 1685 patients (51%) had MFR <2.0, and of those 366 (22%) had an MFR ≥2.0 after RPP correction. MFR <2.0 was associated with an increased absolute risk of MACE (HR 2.24 [1.79-2.81], P < 0.0001). Among patients with MFR <2.0, the risk of MACE was not statistically different between patients with an MFRcorrected ≥2.0 compared with those with MFRcorrected <2.0 (1.9% vs 2.3% MACE/year, HR 0.84 [0.63-1.13], P = 0.26) even after adjustment for confounders (P = 0.66).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients without overt obstructive CAD and MFR< 2.0, there was no significant difference in cardiovascular risk between patients with discordant (≥2.0) and concordant (<2) MFR following RPP correction. This suggests that RPP-corrected MFR may not consistently provide accurate risk stratification in patients with normal perfusion and MFR <2.0. Stress MBF and uncorrected MFR should be reported to more reliably convey cardiovascular risk beyond perfusion results.