Skip to main content
main-content

02.11.2018 | Original Article

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of PET-derived myocardial blood flow parameters: A meta-analysis

Zeitschrift:
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
Autoren:
MD, PhD Sang-Geon Cho, MD, PhD Soo Jin Lee, PhD Myung Hwan Na, MD, PhD Yun Young Choi, MD, PhD Henry Hee-Seung Bom
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12350-018-01476-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The authors of this article have provided a PowerPoint file, available for download at SpringerLink, which summarises the contents of the paper and is free for re-use at meetings and presentations. Search for the article DOI on SpringerLink.com.

Funding

This study was supported by a Grant (NRF-2016R1D1A3B01006631) of the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Republic of Korea.
Sang-Geon Cho and Soo Jin Lee have equally contributed to this work.
All editorial decisions for this article, including selection of reviewers and the final decision, were made by guest editor Henry Gewirtz, MD.

Abstract

Background

Although absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) by positron emission tomography provides additive diagnostic value to visual analysis of perfusion defect, diagnostic accuracy of different MBF parameters remain unclear.

Methods

Clinical studies regarding the diagnostic accuracy of hyperemic MBF (hMBF), myocardial flow reserve (MFR) and/or relative flow reserve (RFR) were searched and systematically reviewed. On a per-vessel basis, pooled measures of the parameters’ diagnostic performances were analyzed, regarding significant coronary stenosis defined by fractional flow reserve or diameter stenosis.

Results

Ten studies (2,522 arteries from 1,099 patients) were finally included. Pooled sensitivity [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 0.853 (0.821-0.881) for hMBF, 0.755 (0.713-0.794) for MFR, and 0.636 (0.539-0.726) for RFR. Pooled specificity (95% CI) was 0.844 (0.827-0.860) for hMBF, 0.804 (0.784-0.824) for MFR, and 0.897 (0.860-0.926) for RFR. Pooled area under the curve ± standard error was 0.900 ± 0.020 for hMBF, 0.830 ± 0.026 for MFR, and 0.873 ± 0.048 for RFR.

Conclusions

hMBF showed the best sensitivity while RFR showed the best specificity in the diagnosis of significant coronary stenosis. MFR was less sensitive than hMBF and less specific than hMBF and RFR.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de. Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Zusatzmaterial
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 2452 kb)
12350_2018_1476_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 2 (PPTX 193 kb)
12350_2018_1476_MOESM2_ESM.pptx
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel
  1. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.

  2. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Kardiologie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Kardiologie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise