1/5/2024 0 Comments Pet flow las vegas![]() ![]() In the past few years, cardiac PET has expanded its evidence base regarding clinical outcomes, whereas FFR has solidified its position in randomized studies as the invasive reference standard.ĭuring the past decade, coronary revascularization has moved from anatomic-driven decisions to a physiology-based approach. Recent work has emphasized the ability of both techniques to guide revascularization decisions by high-quality physiology. SummaryĬardiac PET and FFR have been intertwined since the very development of FFR over 25 years ago. The randomized evidence base for FFR and its associated cost effectiveness remains unsurpassed. Both diagnostic tests provide a highly repeatable and technically successful index of coronary hemodynamics that accounts for the amount of distal myocardial mass, albeit only indirectly with FFR. While cardiac PET can provide unique information about the subendocardium, FFR pullbacks offer unparalleled spatial resolution. Cardiac PET offers a non-invasive and therefore lower risk alternative, able to image the entire left ventricle regardless of coronary anatomy. ![]() Recent Findingsįundamentally, cardiac PET measures absolute myocardial blood flow whereas FFR provides a relative flow reserve. This review discusses similarities and differences between cardiac positron emission tomography (PET), absolute myocardial blood flow, and flow reserve with invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |