Mortality Prediction by Quantitative PET Perfusion Expressed as Coronary Flow Capacity With and Without Revascularization

OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine the relationship between the severity of reduced quantitative perfusion parameters and mortality with and without revascularization.BACKGROUND The physiological mechanisms for differential mortality risk of coronary flow reserve (CFR) and coronary flow capacity (CFC) before and after revascularization are unknown.METHODS Global and regional rest-stress (ml/min/g), CFR, their regional per-pixel combination as CFC, and relative stress in ml/min/g were measured as percent of LV in all serial routine 5,274 diagnostic PET scans with systematic followup over 10 years (mean 4.2 +/- 2.5 years) for all-cause mortality with and without revascularization.RESULTS Severely reduced CFR of 1.0 to 1.5 and stress perfusion .1.0 cc/min/g incurred increasing size-dependent risks that were additive because regional severely reduced CFC (CFCsevere) was associated with the highest major adverse cardiac event rate of 80% (p < 0.0001 vs. either alone) and a mortality risk of 14% (vs. 2.3% for no CFCsevere; p = 0.001). Small regions of CFCsevere .0.5% predicted high risk (p < 0.0001 vs. no CFCsevere) related to a wave front of border zones at risk around the small most severe center. By receiver-operating characteristic analysis, relative stress topogram maps of stress (ml/min/g) as a fraction of LV defined these border zones at risk or for mildly reduced CFC (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.69) with a reduced relative tomographic subendocardial-to-subepicardial ratio. CFCsevere incurred the highest mortality risk that was reduced by revascularization (p = 0.005 vs. no revascularization) for artery specific stenosis not defined by global CFR or stress perfusion alone.CONCLUSIONS CFC is associated with the size-dependent highest mortality risk resulting from the additive risk of CFR and stress (ml/min/g) that is significantly reduced after revascularization, a finding not seen for global CFR. Small regions of CFCsevere .0.5% of LV also carry a high risk because of the surrounding border zones at risk defined by relative stress perfusion and a reduced relative subendocardial-to-subepicardial ratio. (J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2021;14:1020-34) (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).