Analysis of quantitative parameters measured with PET/CT and relative risk factors in female patients with coronary microvascular diseases / 中华核医学与分子影像杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To diagnose female coronary microvascular diseases (CMVD) without obstructive coronary artery disease through coronary flow reserve (CFR) measured with PET/CT imaging, and further analyze its related risk factors of quantitative parameters and clinical characteristics.Methods:From September 2017 to August 2019, a total of 75 female patients (age 25-77 years) with clinically suspected CMVD from TEDA International Cardiovascular Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. All patients had negative results of coronary angiography (CAG) or coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and underwent 13N-NH 3·H 2O PET/CT dynamic quantitative imaging. Left ventricle (LV) coronary flow reserve (LV-CFR) value of 2.5 for critical value was divided into CMVD group and non-CMVD group. Clinical characteristics and quantitative parameters including rest LV-myocardial blood flow (MBF) and stress LV-MBF were respectively analyzed and compared between groups. Independent-sample t test, Mann-Whitney U test and Pearson correlation analysis were used to analyze the data. Results:Of 75 patients, 51 cases (68%) were diagnosed with CMVD and 24 cases (32%) with non-CMVD. Body mass index (BMI) of the CMVD group was higher than that of the non-CMVD group ((26.93±3.52) vs (23.83±3.42) kg/m 2, t=3.63, P=0.001), and LV-CFR was negatively correlated with BMI ( r=-0.341, P=0.003). The LV-CFR of the overweight group (BMI≥24 kg/m 2) was lower than that of non-overweight group (BMI<24 kg/m 2) (2.18±0.47 vs 2.54±0.55, t=-2.89, P=0.005). The rest LV-MBF in the CMVD group (0.74(0.65, 0.84) ml·min -1·g -1) was higher than that in the non-CMVD group (0.66(0.58, 0.75) ml·min -1·g -1; U=417.5, P=0.027), and the stress LV-MBF and LV-CFR was lower than that in the non-CMVD group ((1.53±0.35) vs (1.96±0.45) ml·min -1·g -1, 2.07(1.71, 2.34) vs 2.86(2.61, 2.95); t=-4.54, U=0, both P<0.001). In the hypertensive group, the CMVD sub-group had higher rest LV-MBF than the non-CMVD sub-group ((0.77±0.16) vs (0.65±0.13) ml·min -1·g -1; t=2.26, P<0.05), but lower stress LV-MBF ((1.49±0.34) vs (1.85±0.40) ml·min -1·g -1; t=-3.07, P<0.05) and LV-CFR(1.99(1.64, 2.23) vs 2.85(2.55, 2.95); U=0, P<0.05] than the non-CMVD sub-group. In the non-hypertensive group, stress LV-MBF and LV-CFR of the CMVD sub-group were lower than those of the non-CMVD sub-group (1.53(1.36, 1.97) vs 1.94(1.76, 2.16) ml·min -1·g -1, 2.35(1.94, 2.43) vs 2.87(2.65, 3.09); U values 43.5 and 0, both P<0.05). LV-CFR of CMVD subgroup in hypertensive group was lower than that of CMVD subgroup in non-hypertensive group ( U=164.0, P=0.028). Conclusions:BMI is negatively correlated with LV-CFR in CMVD. The decrease of stress LV-MBF and the increase of rest LV-MBF in CMVD lead to the decrease of LV-CFR. Hypertension is one of the important influence factors for MBF and CFR.