PURPOSE: Absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow expands the diagnostic potential of PET for assessment of coronary artery disease. (82)Rb has significantly contributed to increasing utilization of PET; however, clinical studies are still mostly analysed qualitatively. The aim of this study was to reevaluate the feasibility of (82)Rb for flow quantification, using hybrid PET-CT in an animal model of coronary stenosis. METHODS: Nine dogs were prepared with experimental coronary artery stenosis. Dynamic PET was performed for 8 min after (82)Rb(1480-1850 MBq) injection during adenosine-induced vasodilation. Microspheres were injected simultaneously for reference flow measurements. CT angiography was used to determine the myocardial regions related to the stenotic vessel. Two methods for flow calculation were employed: a two-compartment model including a spill-over term, and a simplified retention index. RESULTS: The two-compartment model data were in good agreement with microsphere flow (y = 0.84x + 0.20; r = 0.92, p<0.0001), although there was variability in the physiological flow range <3 ml/g per minute (y = 0.54x + 0.53; r = 0.53, p = 0.042). Results from the retention index also correlated well with microsphere flow (y = 0.47x + 0.52; r = 0.75, p = 0.0004). Error increased with higher flow, but the correlation was good in the physiological range (y = 0.62x + 0.29; r = 0.84, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Using current state-of-the-art PET-CT systems, quantification of myocardial blood flow is feasible with (82)Rb. A simplified approach based on tracer retention is practicable in the physiological flow range. These results encourage further testing of the robustness and usefulness in the clinical context of cardiac hybrid imaging.
PURPOSE: Absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow expands the diagnostic potential of PET for assessment of coronary artery disease. (82)Rb has significantly contributed to increasing utilization of PET; however, clinical studies are still mostly analysed qualitatively. The aim of this study was to reevaluate the feasibility of (82)Rb for flow quantification, using hybrid PET-CT in an animal model of coronary stenosis. METHODS: Nine dogs were prepared with experimental coronary artery stenosis. Dynamic PET was performed for 8 min after (82)Rb(1480-1850 MBq) injection during adenosine-induced vasodilation. Microspheres were injected simultaneously for reference flow measurements. CT angiography was used to determine the myocardial regions related to the stenotic vessel. Two methods for flow calculation were employed: a two-compartment model including a spill-over term, and a simplified retention index. RESULTS: The two-compartment model data were in good agreement with microsphere flow (y = 0.84x + 0.20; r = 0.92, p<0.0001), although there was variability in the physiological flow range <3 ml/g per minute (y = 0.54x + 0.53; r = 0.53, p = 0.042). Results from the retention index also correlated well with microsphere flow (y = 0.47x + 0.52; r = 0.75, p = 0.0004). Error increased with higher flow, but the correlation was good in the physiological range (y = 0.62x + 0.29; r = 0.84, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Using current state-of-the-art PET-CT systems, quantification of myocardial blood flow is feasible with (82)Rb. A simplified approach based on tracer retention is practicable in the physiological flow range. These results encourage further testing of the robustness and usefulness in the clinical context of cardiac hybrid imaging.
Authors: M F Di Carli; D Bianco-Batlles; M E Landa; A Kazmers; H Groehn; O Muzik; G Grunberger Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-08-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: N A Mullani; R A Goldstein; K L Gould; S K Marani; D J Fisher; H A O'Brien; M D Loberg Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1983-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: R E Stewart; M Schwaiger; E Molina; J Popma; G M Gacioch; M Kalus; S Squicciarini; Z R al-Aouar; A Schork; D E Kuhl Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1991-06-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Ashley M Groves; Marie-Elsya Speechly-Dick; John C Dickson; Irfan Kayani; Raymondo Endozo; Patty Blanchard; Manu Shastry; Elizabeth Prvulovich; Wendy A Waddington; Simona Ben-Haim; Jamshed B Bomanji; Jean R McEwan; Peter J Ell Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-08-31 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mireille Lortie; Rob S B Beanlands; Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Ran Klein; Jean N Dasilva; Robert A DeKemp Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-07-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Timothy M Bateman; Gary V Heller; A Iain McGhie; John D Friedman; James A Case; Jan R Bryngelson; Ginger K Hertenstein; Kelly L Moutray; Kimberly Reid; S James Cullom Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: H Laine; O T Raitakari; H Niinikoski; O P Pitkänen; H Iida; J Viikari; P Nuutila; J Knuuti Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Uchechukwu K Sampson; Sharmila Dorbala; Atul Limaye; Raymond Kwong; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-02-26 Impact factor: 24.094
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: Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Osamu Manabe; Chietsugu Katoh; Li Chen; Ran Klein; Masanao Naya; Robert A deKemp; Kathryn Williams; Rob S B Beanlands; Nagara Tamaki Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 9.236