OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of Rb-82 myocardial perfusion three-dimensional (3D) PET with and without prompt-gamma compensation (PGC). METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective, single center study of 76 patients who had rest and adenosine stress Rb-82 myocardial perfusion 3D PET. All studies were acquired using a Siemens Biograph-40 PET/CT scanner and were reconstructed with and without PGC. Fifty-seven patients (mean age 63 +/- 11 years, 26 men) had coronary angiography within 40 days of Rb-82 imaging. Nineteen patients (mean age 43 +/- 7 years, 10 men) had low likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD). All PET images were scored by consensus of two blinded readers on a standard 5-point scale using a 17-segment left ventricular model. A normal PET test was defined as a summed stress score of less than four. Obstructive CAD at coronary angiography was used as the gold-standard and was defined as luminal stenoses > or =50% in one or more major coronary arteries. The prevalence of obstructive disease at coronary angiography was 68% (39/57). The mean summed stress score was 12 +/- 12 for PGC images and was 18 +/- 14 for non-PGC images. Sensitivity and specificity for obstructive CAD were 90% (95% CI 88-99) and 72% (95% CI 52-93) for PGC images and 95% (95% CI 88-100) and 22% (95% CI 3-41) for non-PGC images. CONCLUSION: PGC in Rb-82 3D PET improves the specificity for obstructive CAD at coronary angiography with no significant loss in sensitivity.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of Rb-82 myocardial perfusion three-dimensional (3D) PET with and without prompt-gamma compensation (PGC). METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective, single center study of 76 patients who had rest and adenosine stress Rb-82 myocardial perfusion 3D PET. All studies were acquired using a Siemens Biograph-40 PET/CT scanner and were reconstructed with and without PGC. Fifty-seven patients (mean age 63 +/- 11 years, 26 men) had coronary angiography within 40 days of Rb-82 imaging. Nineteen patients (mean age 43 +/- 7 years, 10 men) had low likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD). All PET images were scored by consensus of two blinded readers on a standard 5-point scale using a 17-segment left ventricular model. A normal PET test was defined as a summed stress score of less than four. Obstructive CAD at coronary angiography was used as the gold-standard and was defined as luminal stenoses > or =50% in one or more major coronary arteries. The prevalence of obstructive disease at coronary angiography was 68% (39/57). The mean summed stress score was 12 +/- 12 for PGC images and was 18 +/- 14 for non-PGC images. Sensitivity and specificity for obstructive CAD were 90% (95% CI 88-99) and 72% (95% CI 52-93) for PGC images and 95% (95% CI 88-100) and 22% (95% CI 3-41) for non-PGC images. CONCLUSION: PGC in Rb-82 3D PET improves the specificity for obstructive CAD at coronary angiography with no significant loss in sensitivity.
Authors: L L Demer; K L Gould; R A Goldstein; R L Kirkeeide; N A Mullani; R W Smalling; A Nishikawa; M E Merhige Journal: Circulation Date: 1989-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: K F Van Train; J Areeda; E V Garcia; C D Cooke; J Maddahi; H Kiat; G Germano; G Silagan; R Folks; D S Berman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1993-09 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: Marcelo F Di Carli; Sharmila Dorbala; Jolene Meserve; Georges El Fakhri; Arkadiusz Sitek; Stephen C Moore Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Fabio P Esteves; Rupan Sanyal; Jonathon A Nye; Cesar A Santana; Liudmila Verdes; Paolo Raggi Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 1.690
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: Jonathan B Moody; Benjamin C Lee; James R Corbett; Edward P Ficaro; Venkatesh L Murthy Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Paul K R Dasari; Judson P Jones; Michael E Casey; Yuanyuan Liang; Vasken Dilsizian; Mark F Smith Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 5.952