Ischemia on PET MPI May Identify Patients With Improvement in Angina and Health Status Post-Revascularization

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

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 and clinical trials. New invasive pressure ratios that do not require hyperemia have recently emerged, and it is essential to confirm their diagnostic efficacy. The aim of this study was to validate the resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) and the diastolic pressure ratio (dPR), against [15O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. 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 resting and hyperemic myocardial perfusion. Within a 2 week period, coronary angiography was performed. Intracoronary pressure measurements were obtained in 320 vessels and RFR, dPR, and FFR were computed. PET derived regional hyperemic myocardial blood flow (hMBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) served as reference standards. In coronary arteries with stenoses (43%, 136 of 320), the overall diagnostic accuracies of RFR, dPR, and FFR did not differ when PET hyperemic MBF < 2.3 ml min-1 (69.9%, 70.6%, and 77.1%, respectively) and PET MPR < 2.5 (70.6%, 71.3%, and 66.9%, respectively) were considered as the reference for myocardial ischemia. Non-significant differences between the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were found between the different indices. Furthermore, the integration of FFR with RFR (or dPR) does not enhance the diagnostic information already achieved by FFR in the characterization of ischemia via PET perfusion. In conclusion, the novel non-hyperemic pressure ratios, RFR and dPR, have a diagnostic performance comparable to FFR in assessing regional myocardial ischemia. These findings suggest that RFR and dPR may be considered as an FFR alternative for invasively guiding revascularization treatment in symptomatic patients with CAD.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

Improved Performance of PET Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Compared to SPECT in the Evaluation of Suspected CAD

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) with single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) has played a central role in the non-invasive evaluation of patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) for decades. In this review, we discuss the key differences and advantages of positron emission tomography (PET) MPI over SPECT MPI as it relates to the diagnosis, prognosis, as well as clinical decision-making in patients with suspected CAD.

RECENT FINDINGS

Stress-induced perfusion abnormalities on SPECT help estimate presence, extent, and location of ischemia and flow-limiting obstructive CAD, help with risk stratification, and serve as a gatekeeper to identify patients who will benefit from downstream revascularization versus medical management. Some of the major limitations of SPECT include soft-tissue attenuation artifacts, underestimation of ischemia due to reliance on relative perfusion assessment, and longer protocols with higher radiation dose when performed with traditional equipment. PET MPI addresses most of these limitations and offers better quality images, higher diagnostic accuracy along with shorter protocols and lower radiation dose to the patient. A special advantage of PET scanning lies in the ability to quantify absolute myocardial blood flow and assess true extent of epicardial involvement along with identifying non-obstructive phenotypes of CAD such as diffuse atherosclerosis and microvascular dysfunction. In addition, stress acquisition at/near peak stress with PET allows us to measure left ventricular ejection fraction reserve and myocardial blood flow reserve, which help with identifying patients at a higher risk of future cardiac events and optimally select candidates for revascularization. The several technical advantages of PET MPI position as a superior method to diagnose obstructive and non-obstructive phenotypes of ischemic heart disease affecting the entirety of the coronary circulation offer incremental value for risk stratification and guide post-test management strategy for patients with suspected CAD.

Complete Versus Incomplete Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Mediated Revascularization in Patients With Chronic Coronary Syndromes

Multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with worse outcomes across the spectrum of clinical presentations. The prognostic implications of completeness of revascularization in CAD patients, especially those with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS), remain highly debated. This is largely due to the use of non-standardized definitions for complete revascularization (CR) and incomplete revascularization (ICR) within previously published studies, lack of randomized clinical data, varying revascularization methods and heterogenous study populations. In particular, the utility and effectiveness of PCI-mediated CR for CCS remains unknown. In this review, we discuss the various definitions used for CR vs. ICR, highlight the rationale for pursuing CR and summarise the current literature regarding the effects of PCI-mediated CR on clinical outcomes in patients with CCS.

Prognostic Relationship Between Coronary Artery Calcium Score, Perfusion Defects, and Myocardial Blood Flow Reserve in Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery calcium score (CACS) is an anatomic measure of calcified atherosclerosis. Myocardial perfusion defects and reduced myocardial blood flow reserve (MBFR) are physiological measures of ischemia and coronary circulatory health. We aimed to assess the relative prognostic importance of MBFR, perfusion defects, and CACS in patients with suspected coronary artery disease.

METHODS

A total of 5983 consecutive patients without known history of coronary artery disease or cardiomyopathy, who underwent a CACS and ⁸²Rb positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging between 2010 and 2016, were followed for all-cause death (n=785) over median of 3 years. Prognostic value was assessed using multivariable Cox regression models, and incremental risk discrimination for imaging variables was evaluated by comparing model c-indices after adjusting for clinical risk factors (RF).

RESULTS

Mean age was 67.1 years, 60% were female, and 83% were symptomatic. CACS was 0 in 22%, abnormal perfusion in 19%, and MBFR <2 in 53.3%. When added to RF, the model with MBFR had the best fit (c=0.78, P<0.0001). Addition of CACS to model with RF and perfusion (c=0.77) offered modest improvement in discrimination over the model with RF and perfusion (c=0.76, P=0.02). Adding CACS to a model with RF, perfusion, and MBFR did not provide incremental prognostic value (c=0.785 for both, P=0.16). CACS and MBFR both had independent prognostic value in patients with normal and abnormal myocardial perfusion imaging. Even among patients with CACS of 0, MBFR <2 was present in 37.8%, being associated with higher risk of death (hazard ratio per 0.1↓, 1.10 [1.04-1.15]; P<0.001), but perfusion defects were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of anatomic testing such as CACS of 0 to avoid myocardial perfusion imaging in symptomatic patients could lead to missing microvascular dysfunction in 4 out of 10 patients, a finding associated with a high mortality risk. Higher CACS was independently associated with the risk of death but did not provide incremental prognostic value over positron emission tomography with MBFR.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Complete versus incomplete coronary revascularization: definitions, assessment and outcomes

Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Selected patients with obstructive coronary artery disease benefit from revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Many (but not all) studies have demonstrated increased survival and greater freedom from adverse cardiovascular events after complete revascularization (CR) than after incomplete revascularization (ICR) in patients with multivessel disease. However, achieving CR after PCI or CABG surgery might not be feasible owing to patient comorbidities, anatomical factors, and technical or procedural considerations. These factors also mean that comparisons between CR and ICR are subject to multiple confounders and are difficult to understand or apply to real-world clinical practice. In this Review, we summarize and critically appraise the evidence linking various types of ICR to adverse outcomes in patients with multivessel disease and stable ischaemic heart disease, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, with or without cardiogenic shock. In addition, we provide practical recommendations for revascularization in patients with high-risk multivessel disease to optimize their long-term clinical outcomes and identify areas requiring future clinical investigation.