BACKGROUND: Estimation of myocardial blood flow (MBF) with cardiac PET is often performed with conventional compartmental models. In this study, we developed and evaluated a physiologically and anatomically realistic axially distributed model. Unlike compartmental models, this axially distributed approach models both the temporal and the spatial gradients in uptake and retention along the capillary. METHODS: We validated PET-derived flow estimates with microsphere studies in 19 (9 rest, 10 stress) studies in five dogs. The radiotracer, (13)N-ammonia, was injected intravenously while microspheres were administered into the left atrium. A regional reduction in hyperemic flow was forced by an external occluder in five of the stress studies. The flow estimates from the axially distributed model were compared with estimates from conventional compartmental models. RESULTS: The mean difference between microspheres and the axially distributed blood flow estimates in each of the 17 segments was 0.03 mL/g/minute (95% CI [-0.05, 0.11]). The blood flow estimates were highly correlated with each regional microsphere value for the axially distributed model (y = 0.98x + 0.06 mL/g/minute; r = 0.74; P < .001), for the two-compartment (y = 0.64x + 0.34; r = 0.74; P < .001), and for three-compartment model (y = 0.69x + 0.54; r = 0.74; P < .001). The variance of the error of the estimates is higher with the axially distributed model than the compartmental models (1.7 [1.3, 2.1] times higher). CONCLUSION: The proposed axially distributed model provided accurate regional estimates of MBF. The axially distributed model estimated blood flow with more accuracy, but less precision, than the evaluated compartmental models.
BACKGROUND: Estimation of myocardial blood flow (MBF) with cardiac PET is often performed with conventional compartmental models. In this study, we developed and evaluated a physiologically and anatomically realistic axially distributed model. Unlike compartmental models, this axially distributed approach models both the temporal and the spatial gradients in uptake and retention along the capillary. METHODS: We validated PET-derived flow estimates with microsphere studies in 19 (9 rest, 10 stress) studies in five dogs. The radiotracer, (13)N-ammonia, was injected intravenously while microspheres were administered into the left atrium. A regional reduction in hyperemic flow was forced by an external occluder in five of the stress studies. The flow estimates from the axially distributed model were compared with estimates from conventional compartmental models. RESULTS: The mean difference between microspheres and the axially distributed blood flow estimates in each of the 17 segments was 0.03 mL/g/minute (95% CI [-0.05, 0.11]). The blood flow estimates were highly correlated with each regional microsphere value for the axially distributed model (y = 0.98x + 0.06 mL/g/minute; r = 0.74; P < .001), for the two-compartment (y = 0.64x + 0.34; r = 0.74; P < .001), and for three-compartment model (y = 0.69x + 0.54; r = 0.74; P < .001). The variance of the error of the estimates is higher with the axially distributed model than the compartmental models (1.7 [1.3, 2.1] times higher). CONCLUSION: The proposed axially distributed model provided accurate regional estimates of MBF. The axially distributed model estimated blood flow with more accuracy, but less precision, than the evaluated compartmental models.
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: W G Kuhle; G Porenta; S C Huang; D Buxton; S S Gambhir; H Hansen; M E Phelps; H R Schelbert Journal: Circulation Date: 1992-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Y Choi; S C Huang; R A Hawkins; J Y Kim; B T Kim; C K Hoh; K Chen; M E Phelps; H R Schelbert Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: H Nuyts; A Maes; M Vrolix; C Schiepers; H Schelbert; W Kuhle; G Bormans; G Poppe; D Buxton; P Suetens; H De Geest; L Mortelmans Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1996-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: C R Bellina; O Parodi; P Camici; P A Salvadori; L Taddei; L Fusani; R Guzzardi; G A Klassen; A L L'Abbate; L Donato Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1990-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michael Bindschadler; Dimple Modgil; Kelley R Branch; Patrick J La Riviere; Adam M Alessio Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Yang Zuo; Ramsey D Badawi; Cameron C Foster; Thomas Smith; Javier E López; Guobao Wang Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2020-10-15
Authors: Sergey V Nesterov; Emmanuel Deshayes; John O Prior; Juhani M Knuuti; Roberto Sciagrà; Leonardo Settimo; Jerome M Declerck; Xiao-Bo Pan; Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Chietsugu Katoh; Piotr J Slomka; Guido Germano; Chunlei Han; Ville Aalto; Adam M Alessio; Edward P Ficaro; Benjamin C Lee; Stephan G Nekolla; Kilem L Gwet; Robert A deKemp; Ran Klein; John Dickson; James A Case; Timothy Bateman Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-10-08