Myocardial perfusion reserve compared with peripheral perfusion reserve: A [13N]ammonia PET study

INTRODUCTION: [13N]ammonia PET allows quantification of myocardial perfusion. The similarity between peripheral flow and myocardial perfusion is unclear. We compared perfusion flow in the myocardium with the upper limb during rest and adenosine stress [13N]ammonia PET to establish whether peripheral perfusion reserve (PPR) correlates with MPR. METHODS: [13N]ammonia myocardial perfusion PET-scans of 58 patients were evaluated (27 men, 31 women, age 64 ± 13 years) and were divided in four subgroups: patients with coronary artery disease (CAD, n = 15), cardiac syndrome X (SX, n = 14), idiopathic dilating cardiomyopathy (DCM, n = 16), and normal controls (NC, n = 13). Peripheral limb perfusion was measured in the muscular tissue of the proximal upper limb and quantified through a 2-tissue-compartment model and the PPR was calculated (stress/rest ratio). MPR was also calculated by a 2-tissue-compartment model. The PPR results were compared with the MPR findings. RESULTS: Mean myocardial perfusion increased significantly in all groups as evidenced by the MPR (CAD 1.99 ± 0.47; SX 1.39 ± 0.31; DCM 1.72 ± 0.69; NC 2.91 ± 0.78). Mean peripheral perfusion also increased but not significantly and accompanied with great variations within and between groups (mean PPR: CAD 1.30 ± 0.79; SX 1.36 ± 0.71; DCM 1.60 ± 1.22; NC 1.27 ± 0.63). The mean difference between PPR and MPR for all subpopulations varied widely. No significant correlations in flow reserve were found between peripheral and myocardial microcirculatory beds in any of the groups (Total group: r = -0.07, SEE = 0.70, CAD: r = 0.14, SEE = 0.48, SX: r = 0.17, SEE = 0.30, DCM: r = -0.11, SEE = 0.71, NC: r = -0.19, SEE = 0.80). CONCLUSION: No correlations between myocardial and peripheral perfusion (reserve) were found in different patient populations in the same PET session. This suggests a functional difference between peripheral and myocardial flow in the response to intravenously administered adenosine stress

Multi-messenger observations of a binary neutron star merger

On 2017 August 17 a binary neutron star coalescence candidate (later designated GW170817) with merger time 12:41:04 UTC was observed through gravitational waves by the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo detectors. The Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor independently detected a gamma-ray burst (GRB 170817A) with a time delay of ~1.7 s with respect to the merger time. From the gravitational-wave signal, the source was initially localized to a sky region of 31 deg2 at a luminosity distance of 40+8-8 Mpc and with component masses consistent with neutron stars. The component masses were later measured to be in the range 0.86 to 2.26 Mo. An extensive observing campaign was launched across the electromagnetic spectrum leading to the discovery of a bright optical transient (SSS17a, now with the IAU identification of AT 2017gfo) in NGC 4993 (at ~40 Mpc) less than 11 hours after the merger by the One- Meter, Two Hemisphere (1M2H) team using the 1 m Swope Telescope. The optical transient was independently detected by multiple teams within an hour. Subsequent observations targeted the object and its environment. Early ultraviolet observations revealed a blue transient that faded within 48 hours. Optical and infrared observations showed a redward evolution over ~10 days. Following early non-detections, X-ray and radio emission were discovered at the transient’s position ~9 and ~16 days, respectively, after the merger. Both the X-ray and radio emission likely arise from a physical process that is distinct from the one that generates the UV/optical/near-infrared emission. No ultra-high-energy gamma-rays and no neutrino candidates consistent with the source were found in follow-up searches. These observations support the hypothesis that GW170817 was produced by the merger of two neutron stars in NGC4993 followed by a short gamma-ray burst (GRB 170817A) and a kilonova/macronova powered by the radioactive decay of r-process nuclei synthesized in the ejecta

Fully automated, inline quantification of myocardial blood flow with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: repeatability of measurements in healthy subjects

Background: Non-invasive assessment of myocardial ischaemia is a cornerstone of the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Measurement of myocardial blood flow (MBF) using positron emission tomography (PET) is the current reference standard for non-invasive quantification of myocardial ischaemia. Dynamic myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) offers an alternative to PET and a recently developed method with automated inline perfusion mapping has shown good correlation of MBF values between CMR and PET. This study assessed the repeatability of myocardial perfusion mapping by CMR in healthy subjects. Methods: Forty-two healthy subjects were recruited and underwent adenosine stress and rest perfusion CMR on two visits. Scans were repeated with a minimum interval of 7 days. Intrastudy rest and stress MBF repeatability were assessed with a 15-min interval between acquisitions. Interstudy rest and stress MBF and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) were measured for global myocardium and regionally for coronary territories and slices. Results: There was no significant difference in intrastudy repeated global rest MBF (0.65 ± 0.13 ml/g/min vs 0.62 ± 0.12 ml/g/min, p = 0.24, repeatability coefficient (RC) =24%) or stress (2.89 ± 0.56 ml/g/min vs 2.83 ± 0.64 ml/g/min, p = 0.41, RC = 29%) MBF. No significant difference was seen in interstudy repeatability for global rest MBF (0.64 ± 0.13 ml/g/min vs 0.64 ± 0.15 ml/g/min, p = 0.80, RC = 32%), stress MBF (2.71 ± 0.61 ml/g/min vs 2.55 ± 0.57 ml/g/min, p = 0.12, RC = 33%) or MPR (4.24 ± 0.69 vs 3.73 ± 0.76, p = 0.25, RC = 36%). Regional repeatability was good for stress (RC = 30–37%) and rest MBF (RC = 32–36%) but poorer for MPR (RC = 35–43%). Within subject coefficient of variation was 8% for rest and 11% for stress within the same study, and 11% for rest and 12% for stress between studies. Conclusions: Fully automated, inline, myocardial perfusion mapping by CMR shows good repeatability that is similar to the published PET literature. Both rest and stress MBF show better repeatability than MPR, particularly in regional analysis

Responses of spring phenology to climate change

International audienc