BACKGROUND: Quantitative myocardial PET perfusion imaging requires partial volume corrections. METHODS: Patients underwent ECG-gated, rest-dipyridamole, myocardial perfusion PET using Rb-82 decay corrected in Bq/cc for diastolic, systolic, and combined whole cycle ungated images. Diastolic partial volume correction relative to systole was determined from the systolic/diastolic activity ratio, systolic partial volume correction from phantom dimensions comparable to systolic LV wall thicknesses and whole heart cycle partial volume correction for ungated images from fractional systolic-diastolic duration for systolic and diastolic partial volume corrections. RESULTS: For 264 PET perfusion images from 159 patients (105 rest-stress image pairs, 54 individual rest or stress images), average resting diastolic partial volume correction relative to systole was 1.14 ± 0.04, independent of heart rate and within ±1.8% of stress images (1.16 ± 0.04). Diastolic partial volume corrections combined with those for phantom dimensions comparable to systolic LV wall thickness gave an average whole heart cycle partial volume correction for ungated images of 1.23 for Rb-82 compared to 1.14 if positron range were negligible as for F-18. CONCLUSION: Quantitative myocardial PET perfusion imaging requires partial volume correction, herein demonstrated clinically from systolic/diastolic absolute activity ratios combined with phantom data accounting for Rb-82 positron range.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative myocardial PET perfusion imaging requires partial volume corrections. METHODS:Patients underwent ECG-gated, rest-dipyridamole, myocardial perfusion PET using Rb-82 decay corrected in Bq/cc for diastolic, systolic, and combined whole cycle ungated images. Diastolic partial volume correction relative to systole was determined from the systolic/diastolic activity ratio, systolic partial volume correction from phantom dimensions comparable to systolic LV wall thicknesses and whole heart cycle partial volume correction for ungated images from fractional systolic-diastolic duration for systolic and diastolic partial volume corrections. RESULTS: For 264 PET perfusion images from 159 patients (105 rest-stress image pairs, 54 individual rest or stress images), average resting diastolic partial volume correction relative to systole was 1.14 ± 0.04, independent of heart rate and within ±1.8% of stress images (1.16 ± 0.04). Diastolic partial volume corrections combined with those for phantom dimensions comparable to systolic LV wall thickness gave an average whole heart cycle partial volume correction for ungated images of 1.23 for Rb-82 compared to 1.14 if positron range were negligible as for F-18. CONCLUSION: Quantitative myocardial PET perfusion imaging requires partial volume correction, herein demonstrated clinically from systolic/diastolic absolute activity ratios combined with phantom data accounting for Rb-82 positron range.
Authors: Osama Mawlawi; Donald A Podoloff; Steve Kohlmyer; John J Williams; Charles W Stearns; Randall F Culp; Homer Macapinlac Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: K Yamashita; N Tamaki; Y Yonekura; H Ohtani; H Saji; T Mukai; H Kambara; C Kawai; T Ban; J Konishi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1989-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: N A Mullani; K L Gould; R K Hartz; R E Hitchens; W H Wong; D Bristow; S Adler; E A Philippe; B Bendriem; M Sanders Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1990-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Stefano Sdringola; Keiichi Nakagawa; Yuko Nakagawa; S Wamique Yusuf; Fernando Boccalandro; Nizar Mullani; Mary Haynie; Mary Jane Hess; K Lance Gould Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-01-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: C W White; C B Wright; D B Doty; L F Hiratza; C L Eastham; D G Harrison; M L Marcus Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1984-03-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kathleen T Hickey; Robert R Sciacca; Sabahat Bokhari; Oswaldo Rodriguez; Ru-Ling Chou; Tracy L Faber; C David Cooke; Ernest V Garcia; Kenneth Nichols; Steven R Bergmann Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Jonathan B Moody; Keri M Hiller; Benjamin C Lee; Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; James R Corbett; Richard L Weinberg; Venkatesh L Murthy; Edward P Ficaro Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Jacobo Cal-Gonzalez; Juan José Vaquero; Joaquín L Herraiz; Mailyn Pérez-Liva; María Luisa Soto-Montenegro; Santiago Peña-Zalbidea; Manuel Desco; José Manuel Udías Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Andrew Van Tosh; Nathaniel Reichek; C David Cooke; Christopher J Palestro; Kenneth J Nichols Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 2.357