This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) View Online Appendix All Versions of this Article: j.jacc.2007.09.006v1 50/20/2002    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Beanlands, R. S.B. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Beanlands, R. S.B. Related Collections Related Article

EXPEDITED PUBLICATION

F-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography Imaging-Assisted Management of Patients With Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Suspected Coronary Disease

A Randomized, Controlled Trial (PARR-2)

Rob S.B. Beanlands, MD, FRCPC, FACC^_*,_*, Graham Nichol, MD, FRCPC, Ella Huszti, MSc^¶, Dennis Humen, MD, FRCPC, FACP, FACC, Normand Racine, MD, FRCPC^#, Michael Freeman, MD, FACC, FRCPC, Karen Y. Gulenchyn, MD, FRCPC^||, Linda Garrard, BSc, RN^_*, Robert deKemp, PhD^_*, Ann Guo, MEng^_*, Terrence D. Ruddy, MD, FRCPC, FACC^_*, Francois Benard, MD, FRCPC^_**, André Lamy, MD, MHSc^||, Robert M. Iwanochko, MD, FRCPC, FACC the PARR-2 Investigators

^_* National Cardiac PET Centre, Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Division of Cardiology, London Health Sciences Center, London, Ontario, Canada
Division of Cardiology, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Division of Cardiology, Toronto Hospital, University of Toronto Health Sciences Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
^|| ES Garnett Memorial PET Center, Department of Nuclear Medicine and the Division of Cardiac Surgery, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
^¶ Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
^# Division of Cardiology, Montréal Heart Institute, Montréal, Québec, Canada
^_** Division of Nuclear Medicine, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
University of Washington—Harborview Center for Prehospital Emergency Care, Seattle, Washington
The PARR-2 Investigators were affiliated with the previously mentioned institutions in addition to the following: the Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Division of Cardiology, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Division of Cardiology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and the Division of Cardiology, Hopital Laval, Universitaire de Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada.

Manuscript received July 5, 2007; revised manuscript received August 23, 2007, accepted September 7, 2007.

^_* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Rob S. Beanlands, National Cardiac PET Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4W7 Canada. (Email: rbeanlands{at}ottawaheart.ca).

	Abstract

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions APPENDIX References

 
Objectives: We conducted a randomized trial to assess the effectiveness of F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)-assisted management in patients with severe ventricular dysfunction and suspected coronary disease.

Background: Such patients may benefit from revascularization, but have significant perioperative morbidity and mortality. F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET can detect viable myocardium that might recover after revascularization.

Methods: Included were patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and suspected coronary disease being considered for revascularization, heart failure, or transplantation work-ups or in whom PET was considered potentially useful. Patients were stratified according to recent angiography or not, then randomized to management assisted by FDG PET (n = 218) or standard care (n = 212). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or recurrent hospital stay for cardiac cause, within 1 year.

Results: At 1 year, the cumulative proportion of patients who had experienced the composite event was 30% (PET arm) versus 36% (standard arm) (relative risk 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59 to 1.14; p = 0.16). The hazard ratio (HR) for the composite outcome, PET versus standard care, was 0.78 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.1; p = 0.15); for patients that adhered to PET recommendations for revascularization, revascularization work-up, or neither, HR = 0.62 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.93; p = 0.019); in those without recent angiography, for cardiac death, HR = 0.4 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.96; p = 0.035).

Conclusions: This study did not demonstrate a significant reduction in cardiac events in patients with LV dysfunction and suspected coronary disease for FDG PET-assisted management versus standard care. In those who adhered to PET recommendations and in patients without recent angiography, significant benefits were observed. The utility of FDG PET is best realized in this subpopulation and when adherence to recommendations can be achieved.

Abbreviations and Acronyms   CABG = coronary artery bypass graft   CAD = coronary artery disease   CI = confidence interval   EF = ejection fraction   FDG = F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose   HR = hazard ratio   LV = left ventricle/ventricular   MI = myocardial infarction   MRI = magnetic resonance imaging   PET = positron emission tomography   RVG = radionuclide ventriculography

Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) is considered the most sensitive viability imaging method for predicting LV function recovery (10–13). Several observational studies have shown that FDG PET can identify patients with viable myocardium who are at high risk for cardiac events if they do not undergo timely revascularization (14–20). However, because of their design, these studies could not determine whether clinical decisions assisted by FDG PET imaging actually altered patient outcome.

The primary objective of this study was to determine whether patients whose management strategy included FDG PET imaging to assist in decision-making, had improved clinical outcomes compared with standard care where FDG PET was not available. In our experience, many patients are referred for viability imaging without recent knowledge of their coronary anatomy. As such, a secondary aim was to determine whether patients with or without recent coronary angiography gained a clinical benefit from management assisted by FDG PET imaging.

	Methods

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions APPENDIX References

 
Details of the enrollment criteria and protocol are summarized in the following text. Full comprehensive details of the methods and design have been published separately (21).

Patients from 9 centers were enrolled between June 2000 and September 2004. The study was approved by the institutional review board at each site, and all patients enrolled gave written informed consent.

Patients.   Candidates for enrollment were patients being considered for: 1) revascularization or revascularization work-up; 2) transplantation work-up; or 3) heart failure work-up; or 4) any patient for whom FDG PET viability imaging might be considered useful by the attending physician for decision-making and who met other inclusion criteria. Patients were identified from heart failure clinics, cardiology inpatients, cardiac catheterization laboratories, surgical referral rounds, and nuclear cardiology viability imaging referrals. Eligible patients were included if they were over 18 years of age; had an ejection fraction (EF) 35% documented by radionuclide ventriculography (RVG), LV angiogram, or echocardiography; had a high suspicion of CAD on the basis of one or more of the following: coronary angiography; previous revascularization; previous myocardial infarction (MI) (4 weeks) verified by chart review; and/or positive stress perfusion imaging for scar +/– ischemia (reports were reviewed by a cardiovascular nuclear imaging specialist). Excluded were patients in whom a definite decision had already been made for revascularization or transplantation such that the attending physician would in no way alter management on the basis of any potential viability findings; and those who had already had FDG viability imaging. Also excluded were those: with comorbidities that would likely affect survival over the study duration; <4 weeks post-MI; already identified to be unsuitable for revascularization; requiring emergency revascularization; with severe valvular disease that required surgery; or who were geographically inaccessible.

Imaging.   Patients underwent RVG imaging at baseline. The RVGs were acquired with a standard electrocardiogram-gated equilibrium technetium-99m red blood cell blood pool imaging protocol. The EF was measured from the left anterior oblique 45° acquisition (22).

Those randomized to the PET arm underwent imaging at 1 of 4 sites (see Appendix). The PET perfusion imaging was acquired at rest with a standard protocol with rubidium-82 or N-13-ammonia as described previously (21–23). For FDG imaging, nondiabetic patients were studied after an oral glucose load (21–23), whereas an insulin-euglycemic clamp was used for those with diabetes (21–24).

pet imaging data analysis and interpretation
All images were submitted to the PET imaging core laboratory for standardized processing. An automated method of image analysis was applied to the perfusion/FDG PET imaging data to yield quantified measures of the extent and severity of scar and mismatch (Fig. 1). These parameters were included with clinical parameters in a previously derived model that yielded a point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) for predicted LV function recovery after revascularization (21,22). Patients were classified as having low, moderate, or high likelihood of recovery if adequate revascularization could be achieved (low classification was considered when the upper confidence limit of the predicted EF change was 3% or less; high classification when the lower confidence limit for predicted change was above 3%; and moderate for those with confidence limits between high and low cut-points). Physicians experienced in reading PET data also reviewed the images to confirm the model's classification of the likelihood of recovery. Physicians considered the extent of scar and mismatch in their interpretation. Differences between the model and the interpreting physician were settled by consensus with another experienced imaging physician. In addition to a standard clinical report describing the imaging findings, a report detailing the extent of scar (defined as small [<16%], medium [16% to 27%], or large [>27%]) (21), the extent of total viable myocardium, the extent of mismatch (all as a percent of the LV), and the likelihood for recovery was faxed and delivered to the attending physician or surgeon (21). The physician or surgeon would then make a decision whether to proceed with revascularization (or revascularization work-up in those without recent angiography).

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 1 Examples of Reconstructed Polar Maps for 2 Patients In each set, the top panels are the raw perfusion (left) and raw F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake (right) polar maps; the middle panels are the normalized perfusion (left) and FDG uptake (right); the lowest panels are the scar score (left) and mismatch score (right); color scale in the lower panel is shifted to allow visualization of defects (this does not affect the score determinations). (Patient A) Predominantly scar in the anteroseptal are inferolateral walls and apex. Of the total left ventricular (LV) myocardium; 31% was scar and 3% was mismatch. Interpretation was that there was a large scar and a small amount of hibernating viable myocardium and that the patient would not be expected to improve after revascularization. (Patient B) Partial mismatch (mixture of scar and hibernating myocardium) in the large defect involving the inferior wall and apex and extending to the anteroseptal wall. Of the total LV myocardium; 8% was scar and 18% was mismatch. The interpretation was that there was a large amount of hibernating viable myocardium and that the patient would be expected to improve after revascularization.

fdg-pet–assisted management arm
When FDG PET identified significant viable myocardium, "revascularization" or "revascularization work-up" was recommended depending on whether or not the patient had recent angiography. When PET identified predominantly scar tissue, "no revascularization" was the recommendation. When the PET report was available, the physician or surgeon would then consider the imaging data in the context of the individual patient and make a decision to proceed or not proceed with revascularization (or revascularization work-up in those without recent angiography). In circumstances where the scar was large, aneurysm resection could be considered at the physician's and surgeon's discretion.

Standard care arm
Standard care proceeded without FDG imaging available to the physician. An alternative test for viability definition could be considered.

We were aware that some patients could have "vessels which were unsuitable for revascularization." Such patients identified before recruitment were excluded from enrollment. Patients who were directed to undergo angiography but were subsequently considered to have "unsuitable anatomy" continued to be followed in their respective arms on an intention-to-treat basis.

For both arms, once initial testing and evaluation were completed, the physician or surgeon would then consider the imaging data in the context of the individual patient and make a decision to proceed or not with revascularization (or revascularization work-up in those without recent angiography). Every effort was made to ensure that all procedures and subsequent revascularizations were booked within 8 weeks of randomization. The management plans were reviewed at 8 weeks after randomization. Revascularizations directed by initial work-up (with or without PET) were considered protocol revascularizations. Their associated hospital stays were not counted as events.

Cardiac event variable definitions and measurement..   The primary event of interest was the occurrence of any of the following within 1 year of randomization: cardiac death, MI, or hospital stay for cardiac cause such as unstable angina or heart failure. Secondary outcomes included time to occurrence of the composite event and time to cardiac death. Events were assessed by telephone interview every 3 months. All events were reviewed and verified by an adjudication committee blinded to the randomization allocation.

In our initial design, cardiac transplantation had been included in the composite end point (21). This was an important event to capture for the planned cost analysis. However, we are aware that cardiac transplant can be considered a positive rather than a negative outcome. Hence for outcome analysis, patients with cardiac transplant were censored at the time of cardiac transplantation.

The definitions of each variable and the timing of their measurements have been described previously and are summarized in the following text (21).

Cause of death was determined from the death certificate and included death presumed to be tachyarrhythmic (i.e., abrupt loss of cardiac output and pulse without prior circulatory collapse and with no evidence of shock or pulmonary edema at the time of loss of cardiac output) or death from other cardiac cause (i.e., 5 min or more of circulatory collapse before loss of cardiac output and pulse with evidence of shock or severe pulmonary edema before loss of cardiac output and subsequent death).

Myocardial infarction was defined as 2 or more of the following: ischemic chest pain lasting at least 20 min, accompanied by documentation in the medical record of new ST-segment elevation >1 mm in at least 2 contiguous leads, new left bundle branch block, evolution of creatine kinase (CK) rise >2x normal or CK-myocardial band above upper limit of normal, or new Q waves in 2 contiguous leads.

Procedure-related MI was defined as the following: 1) coronary artery bypass graft (CABG): an enzymatic MI reflects cases with increased CK-myocardial band 70 or troponin-T 1.5; clinical MI includes positive enzymes plus 1 or more of the following: new Q waves, new lack of R-wave progression, or new wall motion abnormalities; 2) percutaneous coronary intervention: post-percutaneous coronary intervention MI was based on the elevation of the CK-myocardial band >3x the upper limit of normal or by the occurrence of new Q waves.

Cardiac hospital stay was defined as hospital stay for a cardiac cause such as unstable angina, worsening heart failure, or non-protocol late revascularization.

Unstable angina was defined as anginal pain that occurred at rest and lasted at least 20 min or angina of at least Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class III with onset within 2 months or that was distinctly more frequent, longer in duration, or lower in threshold (i.e., increased at least 1 CCS class within 2 months and was at least CCS class III in severity).

Worsening heart failure was defined as: change of functional class (i.e., increased at least 1 New York Heart Association functional class in the last 2 months); change in clinical examination findings (new S₃, rales, elevated jugular vein pressure not previously noted); required adjustment of diuretic therapy; acute pulmonary edema; or cardiogenic shock.

Statistical analysis.   The sample size of 206 patients/arm was chosen to provide the study with 80% power for distinguishing between an event rate of 50% and 35% in the 2 arms, allowing a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%, a crossover rate of 2.5%, and a further 10% lost to follow-up (21).

Primary analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. One interim analysis was performed once 50% of the patients had accrued, to determine whether the PET-directed approach was beneficial or hazardous. O'Brien-Fleming group (25) sequential stopping rules were used to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05. Significance boundaries were symmetrical, with alpha = 0.019 for the interim analysis and alpha = 0.043 for the final analysis.

Baseline characteristics of patients in the 2 arms were compared by using the t test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables. An uncorrected chi-square test was used to compare the proportion of events in each study arm. A logistic regression procedure was employed to adjust the comparison of these event rates with significant covariates that predicted outcome.

Categorical variables, including the components of the composite event, were analyzed by using an uncorrected chi-square test followed by multiple logistic regression analysis. Survival analyses were used to compare event-free survival. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared with the log-rank test. Proportional hazards methods were used as appropriate.

To address secondary objectives, intention-to-treat analysis was only undertaken for subgroups where there had been stratification before randomization or where the parameter significantly impacted the effect of FDG PET-assisted management or standard care on the outcome. This was the case for patients with and without recent angiography for which there was a priori stratification before randomization.

Because a patient's course might not adhere to the recommendations of the PET imaging, an additional post hoc analysis was conducted to determine the outcome in the ideal circumstances when decisions adhered to PET recommendations. Thus, an "adherence" group was defined among patients in the PET arm. This adherence group included patients: 1) who underwent PET; 2) who had moderate or high amounts of viability and adhered to the PET recommendations by undergoing protocol revascularization or revascularization work-up; and 3) who had low amounts of viability so did not undergo protocol revascularization or revascularization work-up or underwent aneurysm resection because of a large scar. Patients who had events before PET imaging or before revascularization or revascularization work-up were excluded from this post hoc outcome analysis, as these events may have partly driven revascularization or revascularization work-up. Inclusion of these patients would not allow determination of the benefit of following the PET recommendations. The "adherence to PET" recommendations group was compared with patients in the standard care arm.

Finally, PET might add benefit after other stress and viability testing. Thus, in a post hoc analysis, patients with previous stress or viability imaging testing enrolled in the PET arm were compared with the standard arm with or without at least 1 test performed before or after randomization that could be used to assist with decision-making.

	Results

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions APPENDIX References

 
Nine sites randomized 430 patients. Coronary artery disease criteria listed previous angiography (remote or recent) and/or previous revascularization as 1 of the criteria in 349 patients. In 25 patients, a history of MI, verified by chart review, was the single criterion listed. In 29 patients, positive stress perfusion imaging was the single criterion listed. In 28 patients, both MI and positive imaging were listed. Patients were randomized to FDG PET-assisted management (218 patients) or standard care (212 patients). The baseline characteristics were similar (Table 1).

In the PET arm, 207 patients underwent PET imaging. Eleven did not. In the standard arm, 5 underwent PET imaging (after another initial test) and 207 did not. The PET image quality was considered poor in 4 cases (1.9%), owing to poor FDG uptake, and fair in 16 cases (7.7%). When image quality was poor, the perfusion data were used in combination with the best interpretation possible from the FDG data. The attending physician was informed of the poor image quality.

In the PET arm, 58, 103, and 46 patients were considered to have high, moderate, and low amounts of viability, respectively; 104 (47.7% of group) underwent protocol revascularization. Of these, 71 (68%) underwent CABG. Five patients underwent late revascularization (109 total revascularizations).

In the standard arm, 74 (34.9% of group, p = 0.007 compared with PET) underwent protocol revascularization. Of these, 55 underwent CABG (74%; p = NS compared with PET). Nine patients underwent late revascularization (83 total revascularizations). The effect of PET-assisted management was not modified by having or not having revascularization (p = NS for interaction).

Coronary anatomy.   Among the patients with available angiography data for review (recent pre-randomization angiography or post-randomization), 268 of 300 (89.3%) had 2-vessel, 3-vessel, or left main disease with >50% stenoses: 148 of 165 (89.7%) patients in the PET arm compared with 120 of 135 (88.9%) patients in the standard arm (p = NS). Distal disease of >50% in at least 2 distal segments was noted in 51 (30.9%) PET arm patients and 47 (34.8%) standard arm patients (p = NS). Distal disease in the left anterior descending coronary artery was noted in 28 (17%) PET arm patients with angiography and 23 (17%) standard arm patients with angiography (p = NS). A small number of patients (10, 3.3%) did not have a significant stenosis at the time of the post-randomization angiogram in spite of meeting 1 or more inclusion criteria (6 in the PET arm, and 4 in the standard arm). Because our goal was to determine the added value of FDG PET among patients being assessed for viability and these patients had been referred for such and because these patients met the inclusion criteria set and had been randomized, these patients were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis.

Cardiovascular events.   One-year follow-up data was completed for 209 patients (96% of randomized) in the PET arm and 209 patients (99% of randomized) in the standard arm (Fig. 2). First events were cardiac death (n = 29), MI (n = 13), and cardiac hospital stay (n = 94). Two patients were censored at the time of cardiac transplant, which occurred before any cardiac event. Thus, 136 patients experienced an event of interest; 45 patients had cardiac deaths.

View larger version (10K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 2 Flow Diagram of Recruitment, Randomization, Dropouts, Noncardiac Death, and Events at 1 Year* *Two patients had cardiac transplant before any other cardiac event and were censored at the time of transplantation. PET = positron emission tomography.

For all patients, the hazard ratio (HR) for the composite event, in the PET arm compared with the standard care arm, was 0.78 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.1, p = 0.15) (Fig. 3). For patients with EF 0.35 on RVG at the time of enrollment and after excluding those identified as not having significant coronary stenosis, the HR was 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.09, p = 0.14).

View larger version (8K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 3 "Survival Curves" (on the Basis of Time to First Occurring Outcome of the Composite Event) Mantel-Haenszel (log-rank) test for differences between 2 survival curves; chi-square = 2.1, hazard ratio = 0.78, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.1, p = 0.15. PET = positron emission tomography.

View larger version (7K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 4 "Survival" Curves (on the Basis of Time to Cardiac Death) for All Subjects Mantel-Haenszel (log-rank) test for differences between 2 survival curves; chi-square = 1.3, hazard ratio = 0.72, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.3, p = 0.25. PET = positron emission tomography.

View larger version (7K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 5 "Survival Curves" (on the Basis of Time to Cardiac Death) for Patients Without Recent Angiography Mantel-Haenszel (log-rank) test for differences between 2 survival curves; chi-square = 4.5, hazard ratio = 0.4, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.96, p = 0.035. PET = positron emission tomography.

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 6 Rates of Adherence, Revascularization, and Revascularization Work-Up (A) Rates of adherence to positron emission tomography recommendations for revascularization or revascularization work-up (*p < 0.05 for moderate vs. others). (B) Rates of revascularization (solid bars); revascularization work-up without revascularization (hatched bars), and no revascularization (open bars). Rates of revascularization + revascularization were different between groups (*p < 0.01 vs. other amounts of viability).

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 7 "Survival Curves" (on the Basis of Time to First Occurring Outcome Out of the Composite Event) The positron emission tomography adherence group versus standard care arm. Mantel-Haenszel (log-rank) Test for differences between 2 survival curves; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93, p = 0.019.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions APPENDIX References

 
To our knowledge, the PARR (PET and Recovery Following Revascularization)-2 study is the largest randomized study to evaluate whether FDG PET-assisted management has a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes and is the first randomized trial to evaluate viability imaging in patients with severe LV dysfunction.

Although patients in the FDG PET-assisted management arm tended to have fewer cardiovascular events within 1 year, this difference was not significant. Thus the findings for the primary outcome must be considered inconclusive. Regarding secondary outcomes, by intention-to-treat, patients without recent angiography in the FDG PET-assisted management arm had a statistically significant reduction in cardiac death.

From post hoc analyses, under the ideal circumstances when there is adherence to PET recommendations, a significant reduction in adverse outcomes was observed. In addition, patients in the PET arm with recent stress or viability testing had better outcome than those with testing in the standard arm and those without testing in either arm.

Existing published reports and ongoing trials.   Observational studies have consistently demonstrated that patients with viable myocardium on FDG PET are at high risk for cardiac death or events if they do not undergo timely revascularization (14–20,26–28). However, many of these studies are small and have inherent biases in patient selection that might influence outcome. The current trial also has some potential bias in patient selection and referral, because the management course was not absolutely mandated by the test. However, this was also true for the standard care arm. Although it is not possible to prove that such clinical bias is balanced between groups, randomization is expected to balance this as much as possible.

One previous study randomized patients to PET versus technetium-99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography-guided management (29). This study did not show a significant difference in outcome. However, only 36 of 103 patients had severe LV dysfunction. Considering the lower risk of such patients and the small sample size, the study was likely underpowered.

The ongoing STICH (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) trial (30) compares revascularization to medical therapy to surgical reconstruction of the LV (9). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being used for viability imaging but is not used to direct therapy. Viability testing is permitted to select patients suitable for randomization, but is not used to direct therapy after randomization. Although the trial will yield vital data regarding surgical therapies in patients with severe LV dysfunction (EF <35%), data on viability imaging will be observational and, hence, might be unable to provide an unbiased estimate of the effects of imaging on decision-making or outcome. In the ongoing HEART (Heart Failure Revascularisation Trial) study (31), patients with EF <35% and large amounts of jeopardized myocardium on perfusion imaging or dobutamine echocardiography will be randomized to revascularization or medical therapy. Patients might also undergo PET or MRI. As with the STICH trial, useful data on the role of revascularization will arise. However, data on the role of viability imaging and decision-making might be incomplete, because patients with moderate or lesser amounts of hibernation and ischemia are not included and the use of PET or MRI is ad hoc rather than randomized.

Current findings and clinical relevance.   Although the lower event rate in the PET-assisted management arm would seem supportive of findings from previous observational studies, the results did not reach statistical significance, so a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn regarding the composite end point.

The observed event rates of 36% in the standard arm and 30% in the PET arm were lower than projected. This reduced our ability to detect a significant difference. Longer-term follow-up is underway and would be expected to provide additional power. The demographic data were similar to many previous viability studies that enrolled patients with severe LV dysfunction (14–20). Thus, the lower-than-expected event rates might reflect improvements in medical, device, and revascularization therapy (1–6,8,9).

The randomization was pre-stratified by whether the patient had angiography within the preceding 6 months. In the patients without angiography in the preceding 6 months, a lower mortality was demonstrated for FDG PET-assisted management. At first glance this might seem difficult to understand. However, this group was sicker than those with recent angiography (older with more previous CABG and MIs, lower EF, and worse renal function). Patients with previous bypass are already known to have significant disease that is likely to be more diffuse and less amenable to repeat revascularization. Such patients are also at increased risk for redo surgery or intervention (32). It is such patients where decisions for revascularization become even more critical. Thus, it is not surprising that a technique that can optimize patient selection of those more or less likely to benefit might have a mortality benefit in this population.

Post hoc analysis suggests that the group of patients in the PET arm who had already had some form of stress or viability testing had a significant benefit. This suggests that a diagnostic algorithm that includes PET after initial testing might provide a clinical benefit in this patient population. Interpretation here must be made with caution, because the study was not designed to compare specific types of alternate testing and because this was a post hoc analysis. Further verification of this finding in other clinical trials is required.

Study limitations and other considerations.   Clinical decision-making is often complex for patients with severe LV dysfunction. In previous observational studies, between 30% and 50% (mean 42%) of patients who were classified as having viable myocardium did not undergo revascularization (14–20). In the current study, 24.6% of patients did not adhere to the recommendations that were based on the PET imaging data. This likely reduced our ability to detect a difference in the primary outcome analysis. The extent of viability is 1 of several factors that might influence a physician's decision for a given management course and thus impact subsequent outcome (33). Physicians must balance the best available information on the likelihood of recovery versus patient risk often due to other comorbidities. That FDG PET data do impact decision-making is supported by the data in Figure 6, showing that the likelihood of revascularization or revascularization work-up depended on the amount of viable myocardium. The current data also support that there are often other factors that complicate decisions and influence outcomes (33).

The interpretation of PET imaging can be complex and must consider extent of scar, mismatch, total viability, and combinations thereof. It is possible that our simplified approach of dividing patients into high-, moderate-, and low-likelihood for recovery also contributed to the lack of adherence. This effect was likely small, more likely affecting those patients at or near cut points. This again reflects the complexity of decision-making in patients with severe LV dysfunction.

To address the impact of adherence, we did a post hoc analysis comparing outcomes among patients who adhered to the PET recommendations versus standard care. These results showed a significant reduction in events under the ideal circumstances of when there is adherence to PET recommendations. Because the control group was not subject to this screening, potential bias in this post hoc analysis might exist. Adjustment was made for the lone confounder affecting outcome, namely previous CABG. Thus the groups were relatively balanced. Although this post hoc analysis must be interpreted with caution, it does indicate the importance of following PET imaging recommendations and the potential benefits that might ensue.

This study did not include follow-up perfusion or angiographic data to confirm the adequacy of revascularization. Although there seems to be no reason to suspect that the success rate of revascularization was different among those in each group who were revascularized, this cannot be confirmed or refuted. It seems unlikely to us that this impacted the outcome findings observed.

The current study demonstrates the difficulties in designing randomized trials to evaluate clinical outcomes for diagnostic tests and diagnostic strategies, as opposed to specific therapies. Not only do randomized clinical trials for diagnostic strategies depend on the test accuracy but also on the willingness of physicians and patients to follow the recommended treatment and the effectiveness of the treatment itself. Future trials of diagnostic strategies should consider these issues in their design.

Other modalities
The study does not compare PET with specific alternative imaging modalities that often vary depending on site expertise and technique availability. Such a comparison was not the aim of the PARR-2 trial. Rather the primary aim was to determine whether a FDG PET-assisted management approach improves clinical outcomes compared with standard care.

Advances in imaging
The lessons learned from the PARR-2 trial might provide a framework to evaluate new hybrid PET/computed tomography devices (34) and other advanced viability imaging modalities, such as MRI. Magnetic resonance imaging, with its excellent anatomical resolution, is emerging as a useful tool for evaluating viability and predicting wall motion recovery. Whether this resolution advantage would translate into outcome benefit is not known. Few outcome studies have evaluated MRI in patient populations with severe LV dysfunction (20). Contrast-enhanced MRI might carry a potential risk for nephrogenic systemic fibrosis that might be as high as 1.5% in patients with reduced creatinine clearance (35). Impaired renal function is very common in the patient population with severe LV dysfunction, including the current study where 34% of patients had reduced creatinine clearance rates. This, along with the paucity of outcome data, suggests that FDG PET remains an important advanced viability imaging modality in severe LV dysfunction.

	Conclusions

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions APPENDIX References

 
The urgent need for randomized controlled studies applying imaging technology that evaluate outcomes has recently been highlighted (36). The PARR-2 study represents such a trial. It is, to our knowledge, the first large randomized trial to evaluate whether a strategy that includes FDG PET to assist in directing management is effective in patients with severe LV dysfunction.

Although the event rate in the FDG PET arm was less than the standard arm, the overall study must be considered inconclusive, because there was no statistically significant difference for the primary outcome measure. However, there are a number of important findings from the PARR-2 study.

First, FDG PET did have important impact on management decisions in many patients, as evidenced by the different rates of revascularization and work-up relative to the extent of viability. Second, as with previous observational studies, there was a large proportion (approximately 25%) of patients who did not adhere to the PET recommendations in spite of moderate and even high amounts of viable myocardium. This implies that, for clinicians making decisions, the evidence for revascularization benefit is not convincing enough to warrant the potential or perceived added risk in some patients. Ongoing randomized trials will address this question further (30,31). Third, when patients who adhered to the PET recommendations were considered, there was a significant benefit for FDG PET, indicating the positive impact that FDG PET imaging might have under the ideal circumstances when viability data are considered and recommendations are followed. Fourth, an outcome benefit for PET-assisted management was observed when it was used in addition to a preceding test. This warrants further study. Finally, in a pre-defined intention-to-treat analysis, there was a patient population, without recent angiography, who represent the sickest group of patients, where FDG PET-assisted management yields a significant mortality benefit.

In conclusion, the data suggest that many patients with severe LV dysfunction and suspected CAD might not always benefit from FDG PET imaging. However, there is potential value for FDG PET, particularly in a high-risk patient population where decisions for therapy are most difficult. When patients adhere to FDG PET recommendations, a reduction in events might be realized.

	APPENDIX

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions APPENDIX References

 
For a list of the PARR Investigators and the participating centers, please see the online version of this article.

	Acknowledgments

 
The authors thank Sonja Oxton for her help in preparing this manuscript.

	Footnotes

 
The study is supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR grant MCT 37412) and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario (HSFO grants 4316 and 5222). The funding was supplemented by a University/Government/Industry Program: the Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund with MDS Nordion, to provide part-time coordinator salary support. Dr. Beanlands was a Research Scientist supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and a Premier's Research Excellence Award. Dr. Nichol is the Medic One Foundation Endowed Chair in Prehospital Emergency Care.

	References

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions APPENDIX References

 

1. Pfeffer J, McMurray J, Velazquez E, et al. Valsartan, captopril or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both N Eng J Med 2003;349:1893-1906.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Bristow M, Saxon LA, Boehmer J, et al. Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) Investigators Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure N Eng J Med 2004;350:2140-2150.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Cleland J, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, et al. Cardiac Resynchronization—Heart Failure (CARE-HF) Study Investigators The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure N Engl J Med 2005;352:1539-1549.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Jessup M, Brozena S. Heart failure N Engl J Med 2003;348:2007-2018.[Free Full Text]
5. Konstam MA. Progress in heart failure management? Lessons from the real world Circulation 2000;102:1076-1078.[Free Full Text]
6. Khand A, Gemmel I, Clark A, Cleland J. Is the prognosis of heart failure improving? J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:2284-2286.[Free Full Text]
7. Kron IL, Flanagan TL, Blackbourne LH, Schroeder RA, Nolan SP. Coronary revascularization rather than cardiac transplantation for chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy Ann Surg 1989;210:348-352.[ISI][Medline]
8. Tjan T, Kondruweit M, Scheld H, et al. The bad ventricle—revascularization versus transplantation Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;48:9-14.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
9. Jones R. Is it time for a randomized trial of surgical treatment of ischemic heart failure? J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:1210-1213.[Free Full Text]
10. Bax JJ, Poldermans D, Elhendy A, Boersma E, Rahimtoola S. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive accuracies of various noninvasive techniques for detecting hibernating myocardium Curr Probl Cardiol 2001;26:141-186.
11. Barrington S, Chambers J, Hallett W, O'Doherty M, Roxburgh J, Nunan T. Comparison of sestamibi, thallium, echocardiography and PET for the detection of hibernating myocardium Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:355-361.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
12. Bax JJ, Maddahi J, Poldermans D, et al. Preoperative comparison of different noninvasive strategies for predicting improvement in left ventricular function after coronary artery bypass grafting Am J Cardiol 2003;92:1-4.[ISI][Medline]
13. Wiggers H, Egeblad H, Nielsen T, Botker H. Prediction of reversible myocardial dysfunction by positron emission tomography, low-dose dobutamine echocardiography, resting ECG, and exercise testing Cardiology 2001;96:32-37.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
14. Di Carli MF, Davidson M, Little R, et al. Value of metabolic imaging with positron emission tomography for evaluating prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction Am J Cardiol 1994;73:527-533.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
15. Eitzman D, Al-Aouar Z, Kanter HL, et al. Clinical outcome of patients with advanced coronary artery disease after viability studies with positron emission tomography J Am Coll Cardiol 1992;20:559-565.[Abstract]
16. Lee KS, Marwick TH, Cook SA, et al. Prognosis of patients with left ventricular dysfunction, with and without viable myocardium after myocardial infarction: relative efficacy of medical therapy and revascularization Circulation 1995;90:2687-2694.[ISI]
17. Allman KC, Shaw L, Hachamovitch R, Udelson J. Myocardial viability testing and impact of revascularization on prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction: a meta-analysis J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1151-1158.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Rohatgi R, Epstein S, Henriquez J, et al. Utility of positron emission tomography in predicting cardiac events and survival in patients with coronary artery disease and severe left ventricular dysfunction Am J Cardiol 2001;87:1096-1099, A6.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
19. Desideri A, Cortigiani L, Christen A, et al. The extent of perfusion-F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography mismatch determines mortality in medically treated patients with chronic ischemic left ventricular dysfunction J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:1264-1269.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Beanlands R, Dick A, Chow B, et al. CCS; CAR; CANM; CNCS; and CanSCMR position statement on advanced noninvasive cardiac imaging using positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and multi-detector computed tomographic angiography in the diagnosis and evaluation of ischemic heart disease Can J Cardiol 2007;23:107-119.[ISI][Medline]
21. Beanlands R, Nichol G, Ruddy TD, et al. Evaluation of outcome and cost-effectiveness using an FDG PET-guided approach to management of patients with coronary disease and severe left ventricular dysfunction (PARR-2): rationale, design, and methods Control Clin Trials 2003;24:776-794.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
22. Beanlands RS, Ruddy TD, deKemp RA, et al. Positron emission tomography and recovery following revascularization (PARR-1): the importance of scar and the development of a prediction rule for the degree of recovery of left ventricular function J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:1735-1743.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Schelbert H, Beanlands R, Bengel F, et al. PET myocardial perfusion and glucose metabolism imaging: part 2—guidelines for interpretation and reporting J Nucl Cardiol 2003;10:557-571.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
24. Vitale GD, deKemp RA, Ruddy TD, Williams K, Beanlands RS. Myocardial glucose utilization and optimization of (18)F-FDG PET imaging in patients with non–insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, and left ventricular dysfunction J Nucl Med 2001;42:1730-1736.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. O'Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials Biometrics 1979;35:549-556.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
26. Tarakji K, Brunken RC, McCarthy PM, et al. Myocardial viability testing and the effect of early intervention in patients with advanced left ventricular systolic dysfunction Circulation 2006;113:230-237.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Bax JJ, Schinkel A, Boersma E, et al. Early versus delayed revascularization in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and substantial viability: impact on outcome Circulation 2003;108:II39-II42.[Medline]
28. Beanlands RS, Hendry PJ, Masters RG, deKemp RA, Woodend K, Ruddy TD. Delay in revascularization is associated with increased mortality rate in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and viable myocardium on fluorine 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging Circulation 1998;98:II51-II56.[ISI][Medline]
29. Siebelink H-M, Blanksma PK, Crijns H, et al. No difference in cardiac event-free survival between positron emission tomography-guided and single-photon emission computed tomography-guided managementA prospective, randomized comparison of patients with suspicion of jeopardized myocardium. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:81-88.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Joyce D, Loebe M, Noon G, et al. Revascularization and ventricular restoration in patients with ischemic heart failure: the STICH trial Curr Opin Cardiol 2003;18:454-457.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
31. Cleland J, Freemantle N, Ball S, et al. The heart failure revasculisation trial (HEART): rationale, design and methodology Eur J Heart Fail 2003;5:295-303.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
32. Rizzello V, Poldermans D, Schinkel A, et al. Long term prognostic value of myocardial viability and ischaemia during dobutamine stress echocardiography in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy undergoing coronary revascularisation Heart 2006;92:239-244.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Di Carli M, Hachamovitch R, Berman DS. The art and science of predicting postrevascularization improvement in left ventricular (LV) dysfunction in patients with severely depressed LV dysfunction J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:1744-1747.[Free Full Text]
34. Schwaiger M, Ziegler S, Nekolla S. PET/CT: challenge for nuclear cardiology J Nucl Med 2005;46:1664-1678.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
35. Sadowski EA, Bennett LK, Chan MR, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: risk factors and incidence estimation Radiology 2007;243:148-157.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Douglas PS. Improving imaging: our professional imperative J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:2152-2155.[Abstract/Free Full Text]