IJCS | Volume 33, Nº2, March / April 2020

191 1. Douglas PS, HoffmannU, Patel MR, MarkDB,Al-Khalidi HR, Cavanaugh B, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 372(14):1291–300. 2. Cremer P, Hachamovitch R, Tamarappoo B. Clinical decision making withmyocardial perfusion imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Semin Nucl Med 44(4):320–9. 3. Yoshinaga K, Katoh C, Manabe O, Klein R, Naya M, Sakakibara M, et al. Incremental diagnostic value of regional myocardial blood flow quantification over relative perfusion imaging with generator-produced rubidium-82 PET. Circ J. 2011,75(11):2628-34. 4. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology and Society of NuclearMedicine and Moleclar Imaging Joint Statement on the Clinical Indications for Myocardial Perfusion PET. J Nucl Med, 2016;57(10):1654-6. 5. Murthy VL, Lee BC, Sitek A, Naya M, Moody J, Polavarapu V, et al. Comparison and progrnostic vaildation of multiple methods of quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb PET. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(12):1952-8. 6. Agostini D, Roule V, Nganoa C, Roth N, Baavour R, Parienti JJ, et al. First validation of myocardial flow reserve assessed by dynamic (99m) Tc-sestamibi CZT-SPECT camera: head to head comparison with (15) O-water PET and fractional flow reserve in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. The WATERDAY study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018l;45(7):1079-90. References Mazzoletti et al. Myocardial ischemia: SPECT and 13 NH 3 PET/TC Int J Cardiovasc Sci. 2020; 33(2):188-191 Case Report This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License