Role of stress in dynamic single-photon emission computed tomography with myocardial perfusion reserve determination in assessing the severity of coronary artery stenosis

Aim. To assess the role of global and selected scintigraphic scores of myocardial perfusion, blood flow and reserve in the anatomical and functional significance of coronary artery (CA) stenosis.

Material and methods. The double-blind comparative study included 23 patients (mean age 61,2±6,8 years, 12 (52%) women, 11 (48%) men). All patients underwent stress dynamic single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) with adenosine triphosphate (ATP) (140 µg/kg/min in 6 minutes). Myocardial perfusion disorders were assessed by a semi-quantitative method, the total Summed Stress Score (SSS), the Summed Rest Score (SRS), and the Summed Difference Score (SDS) were determined. Global (g) and regional (r) myocardial perfusion (MP) were evaluated; myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) was calculated as the ratio of MP at stress and at rest. Coronary angiography (CAG) was performed within 1 week after SPECT, the amount of CA narrowing was evaluated by diameter. Stenoses >50% were considered anatomically significant. The assessment of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) was performed by the ratio of the mean intracoronary pressure at the CA ostia to the pressure distal to the stenosis at the ATP infusion peak. FFR ≤0,80 was considered a sign of hemodynamically significant stenosis.

 Results. Neither regional nor global scintigraphic scores reflecting myocardial perfusion showed statistical significance as markers of CA stenosis >50%. Among perfusion markers, only SSSg (>4) showed good sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of hemodynamically significant (FFR ≤0,80) stenoses (AUC 0,76; p=0,002; sensitivity 81,8%, specificity 83,3%). The following regional flow scores allowed identification of hemodynamically significant CA: stress MPr ≤0,54 ml/min/g (AUC 0,8; p=0,0003; sensitivity 57%, specificity 92%) and MPR ≤1,5 (AUC 0,86; p< 0,0001; sensitivity 71,4%, specificity 92,8%).

Conclusion. It is proved that global and regional scintigraphic scores of MP and MPR are sensitive and specific markers of hemodynamically significant (FFR ≤0,80) coronary stenosis. It can be more useful for localization diagnosis of the lesion than standard SPECT.

1. Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group, 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur. Heart J. 2019. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425.

2. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, el al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N. Engl. J. Med. 1996;334:1703–1708. doi:10.1056/NEJM199606273342604.

3. Garcia EV, Galt JR, Faber TL, et al. Principles of nuclear cardiology. In: Dilsizian V, Narula J, editors: Atlas of Nuclear Cardiology. 3rd ed, Philadelphia: Current Medicine Group LLC, 2009:1–36. ISBN 1573403105.

4. Beller GA. Underestimation of coronary artery disease with SPECT perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:151–3.

5. Camici PG, Rimoldi OE. The clinical value of myocardial blood flow measurement. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1076–87.

6. Ziadi MC. Myocardial flow reserve (MFR) with positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT): clinical impact in diagnosis and prognosis. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2017;7:206–18.

7. Kajander SA, Joutsiniemi E, Saraste M, et al. Clinical value of absolute quantification of myocardial perfusion with (15)O-water in coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:678–84.

8. Imbert L, Poussier S, Franken PR, et al. Compared performance of high-sensitivity cameras dedicated to myocardial perfusion SPECT: a comprehensive analysis of phantom and human images, J. Nucl. Med. 2012;53:1897–1903. doi:10.2967/jnumed.112.107417.

9. Ben-Haim S, Murthy VL, Breault C, et al. Quantification of Myocardial Perfusion Reserve Using Dynamic SPECT Imaging in Humans: A Feasibility Study. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:873–9.

10. Wells RG, Timmins R, Klein R, et al. Dynamic SPECT measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow in a porcine model. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1685–91.

11. Nkoulou R, Fuchs TA, Pazhenkottil AP, et al. Absolute Myocardial Blood Flow and Flow Reserve Assessed by Gated SPECT with Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride Detectors Using 99mTc-Tetrofosmin: Head-to-Head Comparison with 13N-Ammonia PET. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1887–92.

12. Agostini D, Roule V, Nganoa C, et al. First validation of myocardial flow reserve assessed by dynamic 99mTc-sestamibi CZT-SPECT camera: head to head comparison with 15O-water PET and fractional flow reserve in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. The WATERDAY study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1079–90.

13. Zavadovsky KV, Mochula AV, Boshchenko AA, et al. Absolute myocardial blood flows derived by dynamic CZT scan vs invasive fractional flow reserve: Correlation and accuracy. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019. doi:10.1007/s12350-019-01678-z.

14. Mochula AV, Zavadovsky KV, Andreev SL, et al. Dynamic single-photon emission computed tomography as a method of identification of multivessel coronary artery disease. Journal of radiology and nuclear medicine. 2016; 97(5):289-295. doi: 10.20862/0042-4676-2016-97-5.

15. Mochula AV, Zavadovsky KV, Lishmanov YB. Method for studying the myocardial blood flow reserve by load dynamic single-photon emission computed tomography. Bulletin of experimental biology and medicine. 2015;160(12): 845-848.

16. Henzlova MJ, Duvall WL, Einstein AJ, et al. ASNC imaging guidelines for SPECT nuclear cardiology procedures: Stress, protocols, and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:606–39.

17. Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, et al. Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2002;105:539–42. doi: 10.1161/hc0402.102975.

18. Sousa-Uva M, Neumann F-J, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;40:87.