BACKGROUND: Factor analysis (FA) is an established method for separating myocardium from blood pool by use of oxygen 15-labeled water and positron emission tomography for analyzing myocardial blood flow (MBF). Conventional FA methods generating images from sinograms (sinoFA) are time-consuming, whereas FA can be performed on the reconstructed images (reconFA) in a fraction of time. We validated the MBF values obtained by reconFA versus sinoFA. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 23 volunteers (mean age, 26.6 +/- 3.4 years) MBF was calculated from sinoFA and reconFA and blindly reanalyzed 1 month later by the same observer. Intraobserver agreement and reconFA-versus-sinoFA agreement were assessed according to Bland and Altman (BA). Reproducibility proved excellent for global sinoFA (r = 0.968; P < .001; BA limits, -0.617 to 0.676 mL x min(-1) x g(-1)) and slightly superior for reconFA (r = 0.979; P < .001; BA limits, -0.538 to 0.558 mL x min(-1) x g(-1)), with wider limits of agreement for segmental MBF from sinoFA (r = 0.777; P < .001; BA limits, -1.676 to 1.656 mL x min(-1) x g(-1)) and reconFA (r = 0.844; P < .001; BA limits, -1.999 to 1.992 mL x min(-1) x g(-1)). In addition, sinoFA and reconFA showed excellent correlation (r = 0.975, P < .001) and agreement (BA limits, -0.528 to 0.648 mL x min(-1) x g(-1)) for global and segmental values (r = 0.955; P < .001; BA limits, -1.371 to 1.491 mL x min(-1) x g(-1)). CONCLUSIONS: Use of reconFA allows rapid and reliable quantitative MBF assessment with O-15-labeled water.
BACKGROUND: Factor analysis (FA) is an established method for separating myocardium from blood pool by use of oxygen 15-labeled water and positron emission tomography for analyzing myocardial blood flow (MBF). Conventional FA methods generating images from sinograms (sinoFA) are time-consuming, whereas FA can be performed on the reconstructed images (reconFA) in a fraction of time. We validated the MBF values obtained by reconFA versus sinoFA. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 23 volunteers (mean age, 26.6 +/- 3.4 years) MBF was calculated from sinoFA and reconFA and blindly reanalyzed 1 month later by the same observer. Intraobserver agreement and reconFA-versus-sinoFA agreement were assessed according to Bland and Altman (BA). Reproducibility proved excellent for global sinoFA (r = 0.968; P < .001; BA limits, -0.617 to 0.676 mL x min(-1) x g(-1)) and slightly superior for reconFA (r = 0.979; P < .001; BA limits, -0.538 to 0.558 mL x min(-1) x g(-1)), with wider limits of agreement for segmental MBF from sinoFA (r = 0.777; P < .001; BA limits, -1.676 to 1.656 mL x min(-1) x g(-1)) and reconFA (r = 0.844; P < .001; BA limits, -1.999 to 1.992 mL x min(-1) x g(-1)). In addition, sinoFA and reconFA showed excellent correlation (r = 0.975, P < .001) and agreement (BA limits, -0.528 to 0.648 mL x min(-1) x g(-1)) for global and segmental values (r = 0.955; P < .001; BA limits, -1.371 to 1.491 mL x min(-1) x g(-1)). CONCLUSIONS: Use of reconFA allows rapid and reliable quantitative MBF assessment with O-15-labeled water.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; Stuart D Christenson; Jill L Anderson; Brad J Kemp; David O Hodge; Erik L Ritman; Raymond J Gibbons Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christophe A Wyss; Pascal Koepfli; Mehdi Namdar; Patrick T Siegrist; Thomas F Luscher; Paolo G Camici; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-07-31 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ran Klein; Jennifer M Renaud; Maria C Ziadi; Stephanie L Thorn; Andy Adler; Rob S Beanlands; Robert A deKemp Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Anders Thomassen; Poul-Erik Braad; Kasper T Pedersen; Henrik Petersen; Allan Johansen; Axel C P Diederichsen; Hans Mickley; Lisette O Jensen; Juhani Knuuti; Oke Gerke; Poul F Høilund-Carlsen Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: John O Prior; Gilles Allenbach; Ines Valenta; Marek Kosinski; Cyrill Burger; Francis R Verdun; Angelika Bischof Delaloye; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Nina Burkhard; Bernhard A Herzog; Lars Husmann; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Irene A Burger; Ronny R Buechel; Ines Valenta; Christophe A Wyss; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: G Papanastasiou; M C Williams; M R Dweck; S Mirsadraee; N Weir; A Fletcher; C Lucatelli; D Patel; E J R van Beek; D E Newby; S I K Semple Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2018-01-23
Authors: Geert Hendrikx; Stefan Vöö; Matthias Bauwens; Mark J Post; Felix M Mottaghy Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 9.236