Validation of the resting full-cycle ratio and diastolic pressure ratio through myocardial perfusion imaging with [15O]H2O positron emission tomography

Abstract

Abstract Background Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are invasive techniques used to evaluate the hemodynamic significance of coronary artery stenosis. These methods have been validated through perfusion imaging techniques and clinical trials. However, new invasive pressure indices that do not require hyperemia have recently emerged, and it is essential to confirm their diagnostic efficacy. Purpose To validate the resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) and the diastolic pressure ratio (dPR), against [15O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. Methods A total of 129 symptomatic patients with an intermediate risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) were included. All patients underwent cardiac [15O]H2O PET with quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion, and within 2 weeks coronary angiography was performed. Intracoronary pressure measurements were obtained in 320 vessels and RFR, dPR, and FFR were computed. In the case of RFR and dPR, values ≤ 0.89, and for FFR, values ≤ 0.8 were classified as abnormal. PET myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) served as reference standards. The index tests and gold standard results were evaluated by blinded researchers. Results Figure 1 shows the diagnostic performance of each ratio in coronary arteries with stenoses (136 of 320 vessels, 38%). The overall diagnostic accuracies of RFR, dPR and FFR did not differ when PET MBF < 2.3 ml · min-1 and PET MPR < 2.5 were considered as the reference standard. No significant differences were observed in the areas under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve among the indices (Figure 2). In addition, the indices demonstrated comparable performance when the analysis included all of the vessels. Conclusion The novel non-hyperemic pressure ratios, RFR and dPR, have a diagnostic performance that is comparable to FFR when using [15O]H2O PET to assess myocardial perfusion abnormalities. These findings suggest that RFR and dPR may be considered for clinical use in symptomatic patients with CAD.Figure 1Diagnostic performance;StenosisFigure 2ROC curve analysis;Stenosis