Next Article in Journal
Idiopathic Foveal Cavitation in a Pediatric Patient: Multimodal Imaging Findings Mimicking Early Macular Hole Formation
Previous Article in Journal
Neuropathic Corneal Pain and Blepharospasm: A Case Series
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 16
Issue 13
10.3390/diagnostics16131975
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Intra-Individual Variability of Myocardial Blood Flow and Flow Reserve Assessed by [15O]H2O-PET in Patients with Angina and No Obstructive Coronary Disease

by
Laila Seidelin
1,*,
Eva Prescott
1,2,
Mads Fischer
1,3,
Rasmus Haahr
1,
Peter Hovind
4,
Maira Rauf
1 and
Martin Krakauer
4
1
Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400 Copenhagen, Denmark
2
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark
3
Department for Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
4
Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400 Copenhagen, Denmark
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2026, 16(13), 1975; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16131975
Submission received: 1 May 2026 / Revised: 12 June 2026 / Accepted: 19 June 2026 / Published: 25 June 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Medical Imaging and Theranostics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) are key measurements in myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), with [15O]H2O-PET considered the reference standard. To further establish clinical and research utility, we investigated intra-individual variability of MBF and MFR over time in patients with angina, but no obstructive coronary disease. Methods: In a routine clinical setting, we prospectively studied 21 patients, >50 years with normal left ventricular function and no known coronary stenosis, undergoing clinically indicated PET MPI. Scan and re-scan were conducted within 30 days. Analyses were conducted by general clinical staff and re-evaluated by an expert reader. Reproducibility was assessed using paired t-tests, Bland–Altman analysis, repeatability coefficient (RC), within-subject coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Twenty-one patients (mean age 70 ± 8.2 years; 48% female) underwent repeated scans with a median interval of 21 days. Resting MBF was 0.91 ± 0.24 vs. 0.92 ± 0.22 mL/min/g (r = 0.87; RC 0.23 mL/min/g; CV 9%; ICC 0.87). Hyperaemic MBF averaged 3.06 ± 0.9 vs. 2.97 ± 0.78 mL/min/g (r = 0.83; RC 0.98 mL/min/g; CV 11.6%; ICC 0.81). MFR showed only moderate reproducibility (3.47 ± 1.23 vs. 3.23 ± 0.92; RC 1.90; CV 21%; ICC 0.60). Neither expert re-evaluation nor rate–pressure product correction of the resting MBF improved the reproducibility. Variability was largely unaffected by atrial fibrillation and diurnal variation. Conclusions: Resting and hyperaemic MBF are reproducible, whereas MFR shows moderate variability, which should be considered when interpreting changes in individual patients.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Myocardial flow reserve (MFR) is an independent biomarker of coronary vasodilatory capacity integrating macro- and microvascular circulation. It is the ratio of peak to resting myocardial blood flow (MBF), reflecting the integrated vasodilatory capacity of the epicardial and microvascular circulation [1].
In patients without obstructive coronary artery disease, reduced MFR is diagnostic of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) and independently associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes [2,3,4,5].
Positron emission tomography (PET)-based myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is the reference standard for non-invasive quantification of myocardial blood flow and MFR [6].
Among available tracers, [15O]H2O is regarded as the reference standard due to its near-complete extraction and linear relationship between tracer uptake and myocardial blood flow [7,8,9], allowing accurate assessment across a wide range of flow values. Consequently, [15O]H2O-PET is increasingly used in clinical practice for guiding revascularization decisions, and for evaluation of coronary microvascular function in patients without obstructive coronary artery disease [10].
Despite its established theoretical and technical validity, data on the reproducibility of [15O]H2O-PET-derived myocardial perfusion measurements in routine clinical populations are limited. Prior reproducibility studies have largely been conducted under highly standardized conditions in small cohorts of healthy volunteers, limiting their generalizability to everyday clinical practice [11,12].
The aim of this study was to evaluate the intra-individual reproducibility of resting and stress-induced myocardial perfusion measurements obtained with [15O]H2O-PET in a routine clinical setting. We hypothesized the absence of systematic bias between repeated scans and assessed reproducibility using the repeatability coefficient and the within-subject coefficient of variation.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Population

Patients who had undergone clinically indicated [15O]H2O MPI at Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg from April 2024 to February 2025 due to angina or angina equivalents were invited to undergo a repeat scan.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Participants were eligible if they were over 50 years of age and had a normal left ventricular ejection fraction (>45%) documented by an echocardiogram within the previous year.
Exclusion criteria included known ischemic heart disease or significant regional perfusion defects on imaging, as—in the absence of obstructive CAD—the PET measurements are considered a direct indicator of the microcirculation [13,14,15] (according to routine reading of the scan using a cut-off of two adjacent myocardial segments with a hyperaemic MBF value of ≤2.3 mL/min/g) [16]. Further exclusion criteria were cardiovascular events occurring between scans, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, claustrophobia, acute severe illness, or substantial language barriers.
All participants gave written consent for participation and publication after receiving oral and written information according to the Helsinki declaration. The study was approved by the Regional Committee of Health Research Ethics for the Capital Region of Denmark (H-23070312).

2.3. PET-CT Scans and Imaging Protocol

Scans were performed on separate days with the interval kept as short as possible, not exceeding 30 days, to minimize potential changes in lifestyle and/or medication. Patients were instructed to abstain from caffeine and theophylline-containing food, beverages or medication for 24 h prior examination. Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors were discontinued for five days prior to examination, drugs containing dipyridamole or nicorandil for two days, extended-release nitrates for 12 h, and short-acting nitrates for 2 h.
All examinations were conducted using a standard rest–stress protocol. Prior to the examination, participants rested on the scanner bed for 5 min, after which, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were recorded. The examination was initiated with a CT scan for attenuation correction. A 5 min dynamic PET acquisition in list mode was performed under resting conditions, initiated simultaneously with an intravenous bolus injection of approximately 600 MBq [15O]H2O, supplied via a bedside automated system (Hidex RWG, Hidex Oy, Turku, Finland). Subsequently, myocardial perfusion was assessed under pharmacologically induced vasodilation by intravenous adenosine infusion (140 μg/kg/min for 6 min). Adenosine infusion was initiated 2 min before stress imaging to ensure the presence of maximal hyperaemia.
Although the same acquisition protocol was used, operators and day-to-day setup were not controlled; therefore, the reported variability reflects within-site reproducibility under real-world conditions rather than strict technical repeatability.
All examinations were carried out on a Discovery 710 PET-CT scanner (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA).

2.4. Diurnal Variation and Atrial Fibrillation

To assess potential variation related to the time of day, scans were categorized as AM or PM. We evaluated whether myocardial flow variation reflected diurnal effects by comparing similar (morning–morning, afternoon–afternoon) versus different times of day. In patients with atrial fibrillation, we compared patients with atrial fibrillation to patients without. All patients with atrial fibrillation had atrial fibrillation on both scan days.

2.5. Analysis and Readers

[15O]H2O MPI analyses of both global resting and hyperaemic MBF were performed using the Carimas CE (CarimasCE software (version 1.3.8; Varsinais-Suomen hyvinvointialue, Turku, Finland)), which has previously demonstrated excellent technical reproducibility and agreement [17].
All examinations, including image acquisition and initial readings, were conducted by routine clinical staff. All scans were subsequently evaluated by an experienced reader (expert) with more than 15 years of experience in nuclear cardiology. The expert reader was blinded to clinical information and the routine clinical staff analysis and was provided with anonymized datasets in random order. To exclude epicardial obstructive disease, clinical data and regional perfusion defects on [15O]H2O MPI were assessed. Resting MBF and MFR results are presented both as unadjusted values and corrected for resting rate–pressure product (RPP), normalizing to RPP 10,000 [18].

2.6. Statistics

Data are reported as count (n) and percent (%), mean and standard deviation (SD), or median and interquartile range (IQR), as appropriate. Repeated scans were compared using a paired t-test. For baseline and stress flow values and for the calculated MFR, linear association between scans was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient and linear regression. As these methods assess association rather than agreement, agreement between scans was evaluated using Bland–Altman analysis. Scatter plots with linear regression and Bland–Altman plots were generated.
Reproducibility was primarily assessed by calculating the repeatability coefficient (RC) and the within-subject coefficient of variation (CV), which quantify measurement variability and repeatability between scans. RC was calculated as follows: RC = 1.96 × SDscan difference [19].
The within-subject CV was calculated as follows: CV = (SDwith-in subject/mean) × 100. Within-subject CV was calculated using the square root of half the variance of paired differences divided by the overall mean of paired measurements. Comparisons were made using t-tests, and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used if differences were not normally distributed.
As a secondary metric of agreement, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was assessed using ICC(2,1), calculated with the psych package in R (version 4.5.0). ICC values were interpreted as poor (<0.40), fair (0.40–0.59), good (0.60–0.74), or excellent (≥0.75) agreement [20,21].
The sample size was chosen to estimate RC and CV with reasonable precision, rather than to detect small systematic differences, and was based on previous PET-CT repeatability studies [12,22,23,24], which included 15–20 participants, as well as practical considerations.

3. Results and Analysis

3.1. Study Population

Twenty-one patients were included. The baseline characteristics of the study group are given in Table 1. The median interval between scans was 21 days [range 10–29]. Heart rate and blood pressure at rest and stress conditions were similar, and were comparable between sexes across both scans, with no significant differences (Supplementary Table S1).
Due to technical problems, one patient had the first resting measurement excluded, and due to movement artefacts, another participant’s second hyperaemic MBF measurement was unusable and had to be excluded. Therefore, there are 20 comparable measurements for both resting and hyperaemic measurements: Hence, there are 19 comparable MFR values.

3.2. Resting MBF

Mean resting MBF was 0.91 mL/min/g at baseline and 0.92 mL/min/g at repetition (Table 2). Resting MBF showed strong correlations between scans (r = 0.87, p < 0.001 for both the original and expert analyses), whereas correlations were weaker after RPP correction of the original clinical reading (r = 0.66, p < 0.002) (Figure 1a–c).
The repeatability coefficient (RC) was 0.23 mL/min/g for the original analysis, 0.25 mL/min/g for expert, and 0.34 mL/min/g after RPP correction.
The within-subject coefficients of variation (CVs) were 9.2% for the original clinical readings and 9.9% for the expert re-evaluations, whereas the RPP-corrected original values had a CV of 14% (Table 2).
Bland–Altman analysis of resting MBF showed minimal systematic bias between repeated scans (Figure 2a–c). For the original rest measurement (Figure 2a), the mean bias was 0.02 mL/min/g (95% CI −0.04 to 0.08) with limits of agreement (LoA) from −0.21 to 0.25. Expert re-evaluation yielded a similar small bias of −0.01 mL/min/g (95% CI −0.06 to 0.05) and comparable limits of agreement (−0.26 to 0.25) (Figure 2b). In contrast, RPP-adjusted resting MBF showed wider limits of agreement (−0.28 to 0.41) despite minimal bias 0.07 mL/min/g (95% CI −0.01 to 0.15) (Figure 2c). For the resting MBF, the ICC was 0,87 for the original MBF, 0.85 for the expert-evaluated MBF and 0.62 for the RPP-corrected MBF (Table 2).
Overall, original and expert-evaluated MBF demonstrated good reproducibility, whereas RPP adjustment led to greater variability.

3.3. Hyperaemic MBF

Mean hyperaemic MBF was 3.06 mL/min/g at baseline and 2.97 mL/min/g at repeat examination (Table 2). Hyperaemic MBF measurements were strongly correlated between scans (r = 0.83 and r = 0.77, respectively; both p < 0.001) (Figure 3a,b). The within-subject coefficients of variation were 11.6% for the original clinical readings and 13.1% for the expert re-evaluations, indicating good reproducibility, and the repeatability coefficient during stress was 0.98 mL/min/g for the original analysis and 1.09 mL/min/g for the expert re-evaluation (Table 2).
Bland–Altman analyses demonstrated minimal systematic bias between repeated stress scans, as illustrated in Figure 4a,b. For the original analysis, the mean bias was −0.15 mL/min/g (95% CI −0.38 to 0.09) with limits of agreement from −1.13 to 0.83. Expert re-evaluation showed a similarly small bias of −0.10 mL/min/g (95% CI −0.36 to 0.16) with limits of agreement from −1.19 to 0.99. The ICC was 0.81 for the original hyperaemic MBF analysis and 0.77 for the expert-re-evaluated (Table 2).
Overall, hyperaemic MBF demonstrated good reproducibility, with no evidence of systematic bias on Bland–Altman plots (Figure 4a,b).

3.4. Myocardial Flow Reserve

Mean MFR was 3.47 at baseline and 3.23 at repeat examination (Table 2). Correlations between repeated measurements were moderate across analyses (r = 0.64 for original, r = 0.51 for RPP-corrected, r = 0.54 for expert-corrected, and r = 0.48 for expert RPP-corrected; all p < 0.05) (Figure 5 a–d). The within-subject coefficient of variation was 21%, indicating moderate reproducibility (Table 2). Repeatability coefficients ranged from 1.90 to 2.21 across analyses, and ICC ranged from 0.60 to 0.49, with wide limits of agreement (Table 2). Bland–Altman analyses demonstrated small mean differences between repeated measurements with no evidence of systematic bias. For uncorrected MFR, the mean bias was −0.31 (CI: −0.78–0.15), with limits of agreement from −2.21 to 1.59 with similar findings for RPP-corrected and expert-derived measurements (Figure 6a–d).
Overall, MFR showed moderate reproducibility with no systematic bias on Bland–Altman plots.

3.5. Atrial Fibrillation and Diurnal Variation

In participants with atrial fibrillation (n = 5), Bland–Altman plots showed random scatter across MBF values, with no systematic bias or trend toward wider limits of agreement (Supplementary Figure S3).
There were no systematic diurnal differences in resting, hyperaemic or MFR measurements (Supplementary Figure S2).

4. Discussion

This is, to our knowledge, the first study to assess the test–retest reproducibility of clinically indicated [15O]H2O PET myocardial blood flow measurements. By restricting the analysis to patients without significant regional perfusion defects indicating coronary artery stenosis, we specifically assessed the reliability of coronary microvascular measurements, independent of regional ischemia. Overall, we observed the reproducibility of resting and hyperaemic myocardial blood flow, but larger variability in myocardial flow reserve. No effect of atrial fibrillation or diurnal variation was observed; however, the study was not powered to detect such effects, particularly for atrial fibrillation.

4.1. Resting and Hyperaemic MBF Reproducibility

In our clinical cohort, resting MBF and hyperaemic MBF demonstrated good reproducibility, with within-subject coefficients of variation of 9% and 12% and repeatability coefficients of 0.23 and 0.98 mL/min/g, respectively. Despite being conducted under routine clinical conditions, these findings closely align with repeatability estimates previously reported in controlled laboratory settings. Kaufmann et al. examined [15O]H2O-PET myocardial perfusion in 21 healthy men scanned one hour apart and reported repeatability coefficients of 0.17 mL/min/g at rest and 0.94 mL/min/g during hyperaemia [12]. Similarly, Manabe et al. studied 15 healthy individuals using 82Rb-PET and found repeatability coefficients of 0.19 mL/min/g for resting MBF and 0.92 mL/min/g for hyperaemic MBF [22]. Repeatability of resting MBF has also been shown to be approximately 0.20 mL/min/g for both 82Rb and 13N-NH3 in same-day measurements [1,25], and comparable values have been reported in a chronic coronary artery disease animal model using both [15O]H2O-PET and 13N-NH3-PET [26].
For hyperaemic MBF, a prior 82Rb-PET dipyridamole-based study by Kitkungvan et al. reported stress MBF test–retest variability of 10% within the same session and 21% between days [27], corresponding to estimated repeatability coefficients of 0.64 and 1.27 mL/min/g, respectively. Similarly, a Swedish study abstract using same-day [15O]H2O-PET in 10 patients with angina reported a repeatability coefficient for hyperaemic MBF of 0.43 mL/min/g, corresponding to a CV of 6% [28].
Compared with other imaging modalities, reproducibility estimates are similar. A UK study of 11 healthy subjects undergoing cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion imaging one week apart reported CVs of 16.0% at rest and 26.8% during stress [29], while a Doppler echocardiography study in 86 patients reported CVs of 15% at rest and 17% during hyperaemia [30].
Our results demonstrate that [15O]H2O-PET MBF measures maintain high reproducibility under real-world clinical conditions, across operators and over time.

4.2. MFR Reproducibility

Only a limited number of studies have evaluated the reproducibility of myocardial flow reserve, whether using [15O]H2O-PET or other tracers, and these have largely been conducted in small cohorts of healthy volunteers under controlled experimental conditions [12,22]. Importantly, none have assessed reproducibility in a routine clinical setting using clinically indicated PET examinations repeated on separate days.
In our study, [15O]H2O-PET MPI-derived MFR showed a within-subject coefficient of variation of 21% and a repeatability coefficient of 1.9. In comparison, Kaufmann et al. reported an MFR repeatability coefficient of 1.3 in healthy men scanned one hour apart using [15O]H2O-PET [12], and studies using 82Rb-PET have reported MFR repeatability coefficients of approximately 1.6 [22]. For cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging, MFR reproducibility has been reported with a CV of approximately 24% [29]. In contrast, Doppler-based coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) assessed by echocardiography has demonstrated lower variability, with a CV of 11% overall and as low as 5% when repeat examinations were performed within one week [30], highlighting the impact of shorter inter-scan intervals and controlled conditions.
The moderate reproducibility observed in our study likely reflects the combined biological and technical variability inherent in inter-session measurements performed days apart in a heterogeneous patient population. Moreover, variability in MFR is expected to be greater than for absolute flow measures, as MFR represents the ratio of hyperaemic to resting MBF and therefore accumulates variability from both components. MFR thus shows substantial inter-scan variability, and changes should therefore be interpreted with caution, particularly at the individual level.

4.3. Rate–Pressure Product Variability

MFR and hyperaemic MBF provide insight into both epicardial and microvascular coronary function. MFR may be misleading when resting flow is abnormally low or high [31]. Therefore, for the resting MBF, we did an analysis of the RPP-corrected values. The rationale is to normalize for abnormally high or low resting MBF, by considering the actual myocardial oxygen demand. This is, however, still controversial, as the clinical implications are unknown, and a study showed no significant difference in cardiovascular risk between patients who normalized their otherwise decreased MFR after RPP correction [18]. Manabe et al. concluded that, in 82Rb-PET, RPP correction did not improve the repeatability of rest MBF or MFR [22]. Another study even showed that uncorrected MFR has more prognostic value than corrected MFR in 82Rb-PET [32].
Hemodynamic variables are known to affect resting MBF more than hyperaemic MBF, leading to greater variability in resting MBF and, consequently MFR [33,34]. For resting MBF, reproducibility was high in both the original and expert analyses but decreased after correction for RPP. Hence, the RPP-corrected values increased variability compared to uncorrected values and did not enhance consistency between measurements. This suggests that the observed variation might largely be attributable to biological fluctuations and technical measurement imprecision rather than differences in hemodynamics. This aligns with our findings of relatively stable stress blood pressure and heart rate compared with rest, and attempts to correct for this variability using RPP-adjusted resting measurements did not improve consistency.

4.4. Technical and Biological Variation

Variation in MBF and MFR may be greater in patients with atrial fibrillation or due to diurnal effects. Separate analyses of scans performed at the same time of day (n = 12) did not indicate an improvement in reproducibility. This lines up with a study of cardiovascular magnetic resonance MPI repeatability where no significant diurnal variation in perfusion was observed [29]. Similarly, we did not observe a significant effect of atrial fibrillation on variability in our cohort. However, the study was not powered to detect such effects, precluding firm conclusions.
MBF and MFR measurements are known to be influenced by technical factors, such as choice of radiotracer and stress agent, as well as biological variables including age, sex, genetics, and hormonal cycles [1,31,35]. Previous studies have shown that hyperaemic MBF is comparable across commonly used vasodilator agents, including adenosine, regadenoson, and dipyridamole [1], and that they are comparable between tracers, when correcting for the nonlinear extraction of some of the tracers [36,37].
Despite the robustness of the imaging system and software [13], variability was greater during stress measurements. This is likely attributable to biological factors, some of which may be differences in fluid and food intake, hydration, medication, neurohumoral factors, and fluctuations in heart rate and blood pressure, as well as unknown biological factors. However, previous studies have demonstrated substantial variability even when repeat stress measurements are performed within the same session or within a few hours, suggesting that these slower-varying biological factors are unlikely to account for the majority of the observed variability [1,12,22,25,27,28].

4.5. Clinical Implications

A reduced MFR is independently associated with increased mortality and morbidity [38,39]. The diagnostic threshold for microvascular dysfunction is an MFR < 2.5 [16] when measured by [15O]H2O-PET, corresponding to the cut-off of MFR < 2.0 measured with 82Rubidium-PET [36,40]. Consequently, reliable measurement of MFR is clinically important. The least significant change was 1.9, indicating that smaller changes likely reflect measurement variability rather than true physiological change. At the individual level, this represents substantial variability relative to the diagnostic threshold and may influence the interpretation of serial measurements and baseline stratification of patients with or without microvascular dysfunction. Given the modest sample size of this study and the clinical importance of MFR, larger studies are warranted to further investigate the reproducibility of MFR measurements. It would be relevant to determine whether reproducibility differs across the range of MFR values, especially in patients with reduced MFR near clinically relevant decision thresholds.

4.6. Limitations

Although the sample size was modest (n = 21), it was sufficient to demonstrate consistent findings across analyses, while subgroup analyses may be underpowered. All scans were performed at a single centre, which may affect generalizability, although the standardized protocols used support broader applicability. The readers from the routine clinical staff were not blinded to the results of the previous [15O]H2O-MPI. Although objective image-derived measures reduce the risk of bias, blinded independent interpretation would have been preferable. To address this, the paired datasets were subsequently anonymized and reviewed in a blinded fashion by an expert reader, with variability comparable to that of the routine clinical staff. For the patient cohort, biological variation between study visits cannot be excluded, despite the relative short interval between scans. Minor medication adjustments occurred between scans (Supplementary Materials); however, these adjustments were small and are unlikely to have significantly influenced MBF.
Variability in operator experience and scan conditions reflected routine clinical practice and therefore enhances the clinical the relevance of the results; however, this may limit the generalisability to other centres or software packages. Notably, expert interpretation did not improve reproducibility compared with routine clinical analysis, suggesting that the semiautomatic analysis provided by the software is robust.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that [15O]H2O-MPI yields reproducible measurements of both resting and hyperaemic MBF in routine clinical practice, particularly at the group level. In contrast, MFR shows only moderate reproducibility, reflecting the cumulative variability of both its numerator and denominator, and rate–pressure product correction further increased variability. This emphasizes the need for cautious interpretation of MFR values, especially when evaluating changes between repeated measurements in individual patients.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/diagnostics16131975/s1, Figure S1: Flowchart of screening and inclusion; Table S1: Scan characteristics; Comment S1: Medical changes during the intervention period. Figure S2: A–D: Scan–time comparison. Figure S3: A,B: Bland–Altman plots by atrial fibrillation status.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K. and P.H.; Methodology, P.H., M.K., E.P. and L.S.; Software, M.K. and L.S.; Validation, M.K. and L.S.; Formal Analysis, M.K. and L.S.; Investigation, L.S., R.H., M.F., M.R. and M.K.; Resources, P.H., M.K. and E.P.; Data Curation, M.K.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, L.S.; Writing—Review and Editing, M.F., R.H., M.R., P.H., M.K., L.S. and E.P.; Visualization, L.S. and R.H.; Supervision, M.K., E.P. and P.H.; Project Administration, L.S., M.K., P.H. and E.P.; Funding Acquisition, P.H., E.P. and M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding for study conduct. The salary of the primary investigator of this study (LS) was supported by donations from Sygeforsikringen “danmark” (2022-0067). All other costs were covered by the Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Regional Ethics Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (ID: H-23070312, approval date 17 January 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to privacy. All data were handled according to the regulations by the Danish Data Protection Agency (ID: p-2023-15054).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Sygeforsikringen “danmark”, the Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital for making this project possible through financial support. The authors would also like to express a special thanks to medical secretary Pia Kastrup for the great help in contacting participants and securing scans. During the preparation of the work, the authors used ChatGPT-4o for limited code generation and to improve English language phrasing. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the published article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CFVRCoronary Flow Velocity Reserve
CVCoefficient of Variation
CMRCardiac Magnetic Resonance
LoALimit of Agreement
MBFMyocardial Blood Flow
MFRMyocardial Flow Reserve
MPIMyocardial Perfusion Imaging
PETPositron Emission Tomography
RCRepeatability Coefficient
RPPRate–Pressure Product

References

  1. Schindler, T.H.; Fearon, W.F.; Pelletier-Galarneau, M.; Ambrosio, G.; Sechtem, U.; Ruddy, T.D.; Patel, K.K.; Bhatt, D.L.; Bateman, T.M.; Gewirtz, H.; et al. Myocardial Perfusion PET for the Detection and Reporting of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction: A JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging Expert Panel Statement. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2023, 16, 536–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  2. Taqueti, V.R.; Hachamovitch, R.; Murthy, V.L.; Naya, M.; Foster, C.R.; Hainer, J.; Dorbala, S.; Blankstein, R.; Di Carli, M.F. Global coronary flow reserve is associated with adverse cardiovascular events independently of luminal angiographic severity and modifies the effect of early revascularization. Circulation 2015, 131, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  3. Rehan, R.; Yong, A.; Ng, M.; Weaver, J.; Puranik, R. Coronary microvascular dysfunction: A review of recent progress and clinical implications. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2023, 10, 1111721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  4. Højstrup, S.; Hansen, K.W.; Talleruphuus, U.; Marner, L.; Bjerking, L.; Jakobsen, L.; Christiansen, E.H.; Bouchelouche, K.; Wiinberg, N.; Guldbrandsen, K.; et al. Myocardial Flow Reserve, an Independent Prognostic Marker of All-Cause Mortality Assessed by 82Rb PET Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: A Danish Multicenter Study. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2023, 16, E015184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  5. D’Antonio, A.; Assante, R.; Zampella, E.; Cantoni, V.; Green, R.; Gaudieri, V.; Mannarino, T.; Falzarano, M.; Volpicelli, F.; Cutillo, P.; et al. Prognostic value of myocardial flow reserve by PET imaging in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. IJC Heart Vasc. 2025, 58, 101677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  6. Vrints, C.; Andreotti, F.; Koskinas, K.C.; Rossello, X.; Adamo, M.; Ainslie, J.; Banning, A.P.; Budaj, A.; Buechel, R.R.; Chiariello, G.A.; et al. 2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur. Heart J. 2024, 45, 3415–3537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  7. Hsu, B. PET tracers and techniques for measuring myocardial blood flow in patients with coronary artery disease. J. BioMed. Res. 2013, 27, 452–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  8. Maaniitty, T.; Knuuti, J.; Saraste, A. 15O-Water PET MPI: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Semin Nucl. Med. 2020, 50, 238–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  9. Sciagrà, R.; Lubberink, M.; Hyafil, F.; Saraste, A.; Slart, R.H.J.A.; Agostini, D.; Nappi, C.; Georgoulias, P.; Bucerius, J.; Rischpler, C.; et al. EANM procedural guidelines for PET/CT quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2021, 48, 1040–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  10. Manabe, O.; Naya, M.; Aikawa, T.; Yoshinaga, K. 15O-labeled Water is the Best Myocardial Blood Flow Tracer for Precise MBF Quantification. Ann. Nucl. Cardiol. 2019, 5, 69–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Siegrist, P.T.; Gaemperli, O.; Koepfli, P.; Schepis, T.; Namdar, M.; Valenta, I.; Aiello, F.; Fleischmann, S.; Alkadhi, H.; Kaufmann, P.A. Repeatability of Cold Pressor Test-Induced Flow Increase Assessed with H2 15O and PET. J. Nucl. Med. 2006, 47, 1420–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  12. Kaufmann, P.A.; Gnecchi-Ruscone, T.; Yap, J.T.; Rimoldi, O.; Camici, P.G. Assessment of the reproducibility of baseline and hyperemic myocardial blood flow measurements with 15O-labeled water and PET. J. Nucl. Med. 1999, 40, 1848–1856. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  13. Taqueti, V.R.; Di Carli, M.F. Coronary Microvascular Disease Pathogenic Mechanisms and Therapeutic Options: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2018, 72, 2625–2641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  14. Camici, P.G.; Crea, F. Coronary microvascular dysfunction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007, 356, 830–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  15. Kaufmann, P.A.; Camici, P.G. Myocardial Blood Flow Measurement by PET: Technical Aspects and Clinical Applications. J. Nucl. Med. 2005, 46, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  16. Danad, I.; Uusitalo, V.; Kero, T.; Saraste, A.; Raijmakers, P.G.; Lammertsma, A.A.; Heymans, M.W.; Kajander, S.A.; Pietilä, M.; James, S.; et al. Quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion in the detection of significant coronary artery disease: Cutoff values and diagnostic accuracy of quantitative [15O]H2O PET imaging. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2014, 64, 1464–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  17. Nesterov, S.V.; Han, C.; Mäki, M.; Kajander, S.; Naum, A.G.; Helenius, H.; Lisinen, I.; Ukkonen, H.; Pietilä, M.; Joutsiniemi, E.; et al. Myocardial perfusion quantitation with 15O-labelled water PET: High reproducibility of the new cardiac analysis software (Carimas). Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2009, 36, 1594–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  18. Huck, D.M.; Weber, B.N.; Brown, J.M.; Lopez, D.; Hainer, J.; Blankstein, R.; Dorbala, S.; Divakaran, S.; Di Carli, M.F. Prognostic value of myocardial flow reserve vs corrected myocardial flow reserve in patients without obstructive coronary artery disease. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2024, 37, 101854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  19. Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 327, 307–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Cicchetti, D.V.; Sparrow, S.A. Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. Am. J. Ment. Defic. 1981, 86, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  21. Królikowska, A.; Reichert, P.; Karlsson, J.; Mouton, C.; Becker, R.; Prill, R. Improving the reliability of measurements in orthopaedics and sports medicine. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2023, 31, 5277–5285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  22. Manabe, O.; Yoshinaga, K.; Katoh, C.; Naya, M.; deKemp, R.A.; Tamaki, N. Repeatability of rest and hyperemic myocardial blood flow measurements with 82Rb dynamic PET. J. Nucl. Med. 2009, 50, 68–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  23. El Fakhri, G.; Kardan, A.; Sitek, A.; Dorbala, S.; Abi-Hatem, N.; Lahoud, Y.; Fischman, A.; Coughlan, M.; Yasuda, T.; Di Carli, M.F. Reproducibility and accuracy of quantitative myocardial blood flow assessment with 82Rb PET: Comparison with 13N-ammonia PET. J. Nucl. Med. 2009, 50, 1062–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  24. Wyss, C.A.; Koepfli, P.; Mikolajczyk, K.; Burger, C.; Von Schulthess, G.K.; Kaufmann, P.A. Bicycle Exercise Stress in PET for Assessment of Coronary Flow Reserve: Repeatability and Comparison with Adenosine Stress. J. Nucl. Med. 2003, 44, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Efseaff, M.; Klein, R.; Ziadi, M.C.; Beanlands, R.S.; Dekemp, R.A. Short-term repeatability of resting myocardial blood flow measurements using rubidium-82 PET imaging. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2012, 19, 997–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  26. Chareonthaitawee, P.; Christenson, S.D.; Anderson, J.L.; Kemp, B.J.; Hodge, D.O.; Ritman, E.L.; Gibbons, R.J. Reproducibility of Measurements of Regional Myocardial Blood Flow in a Model of Coronary Artery Disease: Comparison of H215O and 13NH3 PET Techniques. J. Nucl. Med. 2006, 47, 1193–1201. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Kitkungvan, D.; Johnson, N.P.; Roby, A.E.; Patel, M.B.; Kirkeeide, R.; Gould, K.L. Routine Clinical Quantitative Rest Stress Myocardial Perfusion for Managing Coronary Artery Disease: Clinical Relevance of Test-Retest Variability. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2017, 10, 565–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  28. Lubberink, M.; Nordstrom, J.; Sigfridsson, J.; Svanstrom, P.; Eggers, K.M.; Sorensen, J.; Kero, T. Routine clinical reproducibility of hyperemic myocardial blood flow measurements with 15O-water-PET. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2024, 25, jeae142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Morton, G.; Jogiya, R.; Plein, S.; Schuster, A.; Chiribiri, A.; Nagel, E. Quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging: Inter-study reproducibility. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2012, 13, 954–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  30. Olsen, R.H.; Pedersen, L.R.; Snoer, M.; Christensen, T.E.; Ghotbi, A.A.; Hasbak, P.; Prescott, E. Coronary flow velocity reserve by echocardiography: Feasibility, reproducibility and agreement with PET in overweight and obese patients with stable and revascularized coronary artery disease. Cardiovasc. Ultrasound 2016, 14, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  31. Murthy, V.L.; Bateman, T.M.; Beanlands, R.S.; Berman, D.S.; Borges-Neto, S.; Chareonthaitawee, P.; Cerqueira, M.D.; Dekemp, R.A.; DePuey, E.G.; Dilsizian, V.; et al. Clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow using PET: Joint position paper of the SNMMI cardiovascular council and the ASNC. J. Nucl. Med. 2018, 59, 273–293. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  32. Al Rifai, M.; Ahmed, A.I.; Nayfeh, M.; Nabi, F.; Al-Mallah, M.H. The prognostic significance of rate pressure product corrected myocardial flow reserve. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2025, 49, 102222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  33. Gewirtz, H. Coronary circulation: Pressure/flow parameters for assessment of ischemic heart disease. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2019, 26, 459–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  34. Mcginn, A.L.; White, C.W.; Wilson, R.F. Interstudy Variability of Coronary Flow Reserve Influence of Heart Rate, Arterial Pressure, and Ventricular Preload. Circulation 1990, 81, 1319–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  35. Vohra, S.; Sakul, S.; Agarwal, V.; Patel, K.K. Quantification of myocardial blood flow using PET: Current status, clinical applications, and future directions. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2025, 93, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  36. Krakauer, M.; Ismail, A.; Talleruphuus, U.; Henriksen, A.C.; Lonsdale, M.N.; Rasmussen, I.L.; Fuglsang, S.; Prescott, E.; Hovind, P.; Marner, L. 82Rb and [15O]H2O myocardial perfusion PET imaging: A prospective head to head comparison. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2023, 30, 2790–2802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  37. Prior, J.O.; Allenbach, G.; Valenta, I.; Kosinski, M.; Burger, C.; Verdun, F.R.; Delaloye, A.B.; Kaufmann, P.A. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb positron emission tomography: Clinical validation with 15O-water. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2012, 39, 1037–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  38. Ziadi, M.C.; Dekemp, R.A.; Williams, K.A.; Guo, A.; Chow, B.J.W.; Renaud, J.M.; Sarveswaran, N.; Tee, R.E.; Beanlands, R.S. Impaired myocardial flow reserve on rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging predicts adverse outcomes in patients assessed for myocardial ischemia. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2011, 58, 740–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  39. Rauf, M.; Hansen, K.W.; Galatius, S.; Wiinberg, N.; Brinth, L.S.; Højstrup, S.; Talleruphuus, U.; Prescott, E. Prognostic implications of myocardial perfusion imaging by 82-rubidium positron emission tomography in male and female patients with angina and no perfusion defects. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2023, 24, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  40. Knuuti, J.; Wijns, W.; Saraste, A.; Capodanno, D.; Barbato, E.; Funck-Brentano, C.; Prescott, E.; Storey, R.F.; Deaton, C.; Cuisset, T.; et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur. Heart J. 2020, 41, 407–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
Diagnostics 16 01975 g001
Figure 1. (a–c) resting myocardial blood flow reproducibility by scatter plots. (a) Scan–rescan comparison of the original resting myocardial blood flow measurements. (b) Scan–rescan comparison of the original rate–pressure product-corrected resting myocardial blood flow measurements. (c) Scan–rescan comparison of the expert reading of the resting myocardial blood flow measurements. Black dots represent individual measurements. The solid black line represents the linear regression line. The red dashed line represents the line of identity (y = x).
Figure 1. (a–c) resting myocardial blood flow reproducibility by scatter plots. (a) Scan–rescan comparison of the original resting myocardial blood flow measurements. (b) Scan–rescan comparison of the original rate–pressure product-corrected resting myocardial blood flow measurements. (c) Scan–rescan comparison of the expert reading of the resting myocardial blood flow measurements. Black dots represent individual measurements. The solid black line represents the linear regression line. The red dashed line represents the line of identity (y = x).
Diagnostics 16 01975 g001
Diagnostics 16 01975 g002
Figure 2. (a–c) resting myocardial blood flow reproducibility by Bland–Altman plot. (a) Bland–Altman analysis of resting myocardial blood flow. (b) Bland–Altman analysis of expert-reassessed resting myocardial blood flow. (c) Bland–Altman analysis of rate–pressure product-corrected resting myocardial blood flow. Black dots represent individual measurements.
Figure 2. (a–c) resting myocardial blood flow reproducibility by Bland–Altman plot. (a) Bland–Altman analysis of resting myocardial blood flow. (b) Bland–Altman analysis of expert-reassessed resting myocardial blood flow. (c) Bland–Altman analysis of rate–pressure product-corrected resting myocardial blood flow. Black dots represent individual measurements.
Diagnostics 16 01975 g002
Diagnostics 16 01975 g003
Figure 3. (a,b) hyperaemic myocardial blood flow reproducibility by scatter plot. (a) scan–rescan comparison of the original hyperaemic myocardial blood flow measurements. (b) scan–rescan comparison of the expert reading of hyperaemic myocardial blood flow measurements. Black dots represent individual measurements. The solid black line represents the linear regression line. The red dashed line represents the line of identity (y = x).
Figure 3. (a,b) hyperaemic myocardial blood flow reproducibility by scatter plot. (a) scan–rescan comparison of the original hyperaemic myocardial blood flow measurements. (b) scan–rescan comparison of the expert reading of hyperaemic myocardial blood flow measurements. Black dots represent individual measurements. The solid black line represents the linear regression line. The red dashed line represents the line of identity (y = x).
Diagnostics 16 01975 g003
Diagnostics 16 01975 g004
Figure 4. (a,b) hyperaemic myocardial blood flow reproducibility by Bland–Altman Plot. (a) Bland–Altman analysis of hyperaemic myocardial blood flow. (b) Bland–Altman analysis of the expert hyperaemic myocardial blood flow reading. Black dots represent individual measurements.
Figure 4. (a,b) hyperaemic myocardial blood flow reproducibility by Bland–Altman Plot. (a) Bland–Altman analysis of hyperaemic myocardial blood flow. (b) Bland–Altman analysis of the expert hyperaemic myocardial blood flow reading. Black dots represent individual measurements.
Diagnostics 16 01975 g004
Diagnostics 16 01975 g005
Figure 5. (a–d) myocardial flow reserve reproducibility by scatter plot. (a) Original. scan–rescan comparison of the myocardial flow reserve, calculated by the original resting and hyperaemic values. (b) RPP corrected. scan–rescan comparison of the myocardial flow reserve, calculated by the original rate–pressure product-corrected resting values and original hyperaemic values. (c) Expert assessment. scan–rescan comparison of the myocardial flow reserve, of the expert evaluated resting values and expert evaluated hyperaemic values. (d) Expert with RPP correction. scan–rescan comparison of the myocardial flow reserve, of the expert evaluated rate–pressure product-corrected resting values and expert evaluated hyperaemic values.
Figure 5. (a–d) myocardial flow reserve reproducibility by scatter plot. (a) Original. scan–rescan comparison of the myocardial flow reserve, calculated by the original resting and hyperaemic values. (b) RPP corrected. scan–rescan comparison of the myocardial flow reserve, calculated by the original rate–pressure product-corrected resting values and original hyperaemic values. (c) Expert assessment. scan–rescan comparison of the myocardial flow reserve, of the expert evaluated resting values and expert evaluated hyperaemic values. (d) Expert with RPP correction. scan–rescan comparison of the myocardial flow reserve, of the expert evaluated rate–pressure product-corrected resting values and expert evaluated hyperaemic values.
Diagnostics 16 01975 g005
Diagnostics 16 01975 g006
Figure 6. (a–d) myocardial flow reserve reproducibility by Bland–Altman plot. (a) Bland–Altman analysis of scan–rescan myocardial flow reserve (MFR) from original myocardial blood flow (MBF). (b) Bland–Altman analysis of scan–rescan MFR from expert reassessed MBF. (c) Bland–Altman analysis of scan–rescan MFR from rate–pressure product-corrected MBF. (d) Bland–Altman analysis of scan–rescan MFR from rate–pressure product-corrected expert reassessed MBF. Black dots represent individual measurements.
Figure 6. (a–d) myocardial flow reserve reproducibility by Bland–Altman plot. (a) Bland–Altman analysis of scan–rescan myocardial flow reserve (MFR) from original myocardial blood flow (MBF). (b) Bland–Altman analysis of scan–rescan MFR from expert reassessed MBF. (c) Bland–Altman analysis of scan–rescan MFR from rate–pressure product-corrected MBF. (d) Bland–Altman analysis of scan–rescan MFR from rate–pressure product-corrected expert reassessed MBF. Black dots represent individual measurements.
Diagnostics 16 01975 g006
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
Patient characteristicsN = 21 (10 female/11 male)
Age (years)69.8 (8.21)
Sex (Female)10 (47.6%)
BMI28.7 (6.31)
Smoking status:
Current
Former
Never
1 (4.8%)
12 (57.1%)
8 (38.1%)
Hypertension11 (52.4%)
Hypercholesterolemia10 (47.6%)
Diabetes type II4 (19.0%)
Atrial fibrillation5 (23.8%)
Medicine changes b2 (9.5%)
Interval between scans (days)21 (5.37) [10;29]
Scan time of day similarity a12 (57.1%)
Data are means (SD) or numbers (%), and [Range]. a Morning defined as 08–12, afternoon defined as 12–17. Scan time is considered similar if both scans are performed at the same time-interval. b For details regarding medicinal changes, see Supplementary Comment S1.
Table 2. Scan reproducibility: resting and hyperaemic myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve.
Table 2. Scan reproducibility: resting and hyperaemic myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve.
Scan 1
Mean (SD)		Scan 2
Mean (SD)		p-Value dMean
Difference (SD)		RC *, mL/min/g
(95% CI)		CV **, %
(95% CI)		ICC ***
(95% CI)		Difference Median (IQR) [Range]
Resting MBF, Global a
     Original0.91 (0.24)0.92 (0.22)0.470.02 (0.12)0.23 (0.18;0.34)9.2 (7.0;13.4)0.87 (0.71;0.95)0 (0.1) [0.4]
     Expert0.92 (0.26)0.91 (0.19)0.86−0.01 (0.13)0.25 (0.19;0.37)9.9 (7.5;14.4)0.85 (0.67;0.94)0 (0.2) [0.5]
     RPP-corrected c0.85 (0.19)0.92 (0.22)0.100.07 (0.18)0.34 (0.26;0.50)14.0 (10.6;20.4)0.62 (0.27;0.83)0.07 (0.24) [0.7]
Hyperaemic MBF, Global a
     Original3.06 (0.90)2.97 (0.78)0.21−0.15 (0.50)0.98 (0.75;1.43)11.6 (8.8;17.0)0.81 (0.60;0.92)−0.05 (0.625) [2]
     Expert3.0 (0.88)2.97 (0.78)0.21−0.10 (0.56)1.09 (0.83;1.60)13.1 (10.0;19.1)0.77 (0.51;0.90)−0.05 (0.55) [2.4]
Myocardial Flow Reserve b
     Original3.47 (1.23)3.23 (0.92)0.18−0.31 (0.97)1.90 (1.43;2.81)20.6 (15.5;30.4)0.60 (0.23;0.82)−0.02 (0.85) [3.3]
     RPP-corrected c3.59 (1.01)3.26 (1.05)0.13−0.38 (1.03)2.03 (1.53;3.00)21.5 (16.2;31.8)0.49 (0.08;0.79)−0.31 (1.42) [3.68]
     Expert3.40 (1.28)3.23 (0.92)0.63−0.13 (1.12)2.20 (1.66;3.25)23.7 (17.9;35.0)0.53 (0.12;0.79)0 (0.7) [4.4]
     Expert RPP-corrected c3.52 (1.09)3.36 (1.07)0.48−0.19 (1.13)2.21 (1.67;3.27)23.3 (17.6;34.4)0.49 (0.07;0.77)−0.33 (1.09) [4.63]
Data are means (SD) or numbers (%), and [Range]. a Myocardial blood flow. Resting and hyperaemic flow values are in mL/min/g. b Myocardial flow reserve = hyperaemic MBF/resting MBF. c Rate–pressure product-corrected resting MBF was calculated as (resting MBF/(resting systolic blood pressure × resting heart rate)) × 10,000. d by paired t-test. * Repeatability coefficient = 1.96 × SDdifference, given in mL/min/g. ** Within-subject coefficient of variation = (SDwithin/mean) × 100, given in percent. *** Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(2,1)).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Seidelin, L.; Prescott, E.; Fischer, M.; Haahr, R.; Hovind, P.; Rauf, M.; Krakauer, M. Intra-Individual Variability of Myocardial Blood Flow and Flow Reserve Assessed by [15O]H2O-PET in Patients with Angina and No Obstructive Coronary Disease. Diagnostics 2026, 16, 1975. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16131975

AMA Style

Seidelin L, Prescott E, Fischer M, Haahr R, Hovind P, Rauf M, Krakauer M. Intra-Individual Variability of Myocardial Blood Flow and Flow Reserve Assessed by [15O]H2O-PET in Patients with Angina and No Obstructive Coronary Disease. Diagnostics. 2026; 16(13):1975. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16131975

Chicago/Turabian Style

Seidelin, Laila, Eva Prescott, Mads Fischer, Rasmus Haahr, Peter Hovind, Maira Rauf, and Martin Krakauer. 2026. "Intra-Individual Variability of Myocardial Blood Flow and Flow Reserve Assessed by [15O]H2O-PET in Patients with Angina and No Obstructive Coronary Disease" Diagnostics 16, no. 13: 1975. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16131975

APA Style

Seidelin, L., Prescott, E., Fischer, M., Haahr, R., Hovind, P., Rauf, M., & Krakauer, M. (2026). Intra-Individual Variability of Myocardial Blood Flow and Flow Reserve Assessed by [15O]H2O-PET in Patients with Angina and No Obstructive Coronary Disease. Diagnostics, 16(13), 1975. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16131975

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop