ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2024
Prognostic value of myocardial flow reserve vs corrected myocardial flow reserve in patients without obstructive coronary artery disease.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of rate-pressure product correction of myocardial blood flow on the prognostic relevance in patients with heart failure.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2026Article
- The prognostic value of quantitative myocardial blood flow and flow reserve by dynamic CZT-SPECT for major adverse cardiovascular events.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Reduced ¹³N-Ammonia PET Myocardial Flow Reserve and Heart-Failure-Related Risk Independent of Relative Ischemia in Chronic Coronary Syndrome.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Article
- Diagnosis of multivessel coronary artery disease usingJapanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Intra-Individual Variability of Myocardial Blood Flow and Flow Reserve Assessed by [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Beyond Stenosis: Mechanism-Based Multimodality Imaging and Invasive Coronary Function Testing for Endotype Definition in ANOCA/INOCA.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Classical and endogen type of coronary microvascular dysfunction and potential association with cardiovascular events in a cardiometabolic disease population.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion can discriminate significant cardiac allograft vasculopathy: a multi-centre study.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2025Article
- Sex differences in myocardial flow reserve among individuals with type 2 diabetes: insights from the DiaHeart study.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2025Article
- Emerging Applications of Positron Emission Tomography in Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMyocardial flow reserve (MFR) by positron emission tomography (PET) is a validated measure of cardiovascular risk. Elevated resting rate pressure product (RPP = heart rate x systolic blood pressure) can cause high resting myocardial blood flow (MBF), resulting in reduced MFR despite normal/near-normal peak stress MBF. When resting MBF is high, it is not known if RPP-corrected MFR (MFR
methodsWe retrospectively studied patients referred for rest/stress cardiac PET at our center from 2006 to 2020. Patients with abnormal perfusion (summed stress score >3) or prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were excluded. MFR
results3276 patients were followed for a median of 7 (IQR 3-12) years. 1685 patients (51%) had MFR <2.0, and of those 366 (22%) had an MFR ≥2.0 after RPP correction. MFR <2.0 was associated with an increased absolute risk of MACE (HR 2.24 [1.79-2.81], P < 0.0001). Among patients with MFR <2.0, the risk of MACE was not statistically different between patients with an MFR
conclusionsIn patients without overt obstructive CAD and MFR< 2.0, there was no significant difference in cardiovascular risk between patients with discordant (≥2.0) and concordant (<2) MFR following RPP correction. This suggests that RPP-corrected MFR may not consistently provide accurate risk stratification in patients with normal perfusion and MFR <2.0. Stress MBF and uncorrected MFR should be reported to more reliably convey cardiovascular risk beyond perfusion results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.