82-rubidium positron emission tomography determined myocardial flow reserve and outcomes following cardiac revascularisation - A multicentre registry study.

Background: Finding patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) whom revascularization could benefit, is complicated. Myocardial flow reserve (MFR), a measurement of myocardial perfusion, has proven prognostic value on survival and risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We investigated if MFR identifies who may benefit from revascularization.
Methods: Among 7462 patients from Danish hospitals examined with ⁸² Rb PET between January 2018 and August 2020, patients with ≥5% reversible perfusion defects were followed for MACE and all-cause mortality. Associations between revascularisation (within 90 days) and outcomes according to MFR (< and ≥ 2) was assessed by Cox regression adjusted by inverse probability weighting for demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, comorbidities, and ⁸² Rb PET variables.
Results: Of 1806 patients with ≥5% reversible perfusion defect, 893 (49%) had MFR < 2 and 491 underwent revascularisation (36.6% in MFR < 2 versus 17.9% MFR ≥ 2, p < 0.001). During a median follow-up of 37.0 [31.0-45.8 IQR] months, 251 experienced a MACE and 173 died. Revascularisation was associated with lower adjusted risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.30-0.88], p = 0.015) and MACE (HR, 0.54 [0.33-0.87], p = 0.012) in patients with MFR < 2 but not MFR ≥ 2 for all-cause mortality (HR 1.33 [0.52-3.40], p = 0.542) and MACE (HR 1.50 [0.79-2.84], p = 0.211). MFR significantly modified the association between revascularisation and MACE, but not all-cause mortality (interaction p-value 0.021 and 0.094, respectively).
Conclusions: Revascularization was associated with improved prognosis among patients with impaired MFR. No association was seen in patients with normal MFR. In patients with regional ischemia, MFR may identify patients with a prognostic benefit from revascularization.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors report no relationships that could be construed as a conflict of interest.
(Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)