Table 1.
Comparison of cardiac PET and FFR among various criteria
| PET | FFR | Advantage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invasive | No | Yes | PET |
| LV coverage | Whole | Partial | PET |
| CTO/tortuous | Yes | No | PET |
| Flow | Absolute | Relative | peta |
| Subendocardium | Partial | No | pet |
| LV mass | Yes | Indirect | pet |
| Failure rate | < 2% | < 2% | tie |
| Test/retest (min) | ± 10% | ± 10% | tie |
| Test/retest (weeks) | ± 20% | Unknown | N/A |
| Spatial resolution | Good | Excellent | ffra |
| RCT | Limited | Numerous | FFR |
| Cost effective | Probably | Yes | FFR |
aLowercase “pet” and “ffr” denote a modest advantage whereas upper-case “PET” and “FFR” denote a clear advantage
CTO chronic total occlusion, FFR fractional flow reserve, LV left ventricular, N/A not available, PET positron emission tomography, RCT randomized controlled trial