Literature DB >> 23447656

Multisoftware reproducibility study of stress and rest myocardial blood flow assessed with 3D dynamic PET/CT and a 1-tissue-compartment model of 82Rb kinetics.

Robert A Dekemp1, Jerome Declerck, Ran Klein, Xiao-Bo Pan, Ryo Nakazato, Christine Tonge, Parthiban Arumugam, Daniel S Berman, Guido Germano, Rob S Beanlands, Piotr J Slomka.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Routine quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) requires robust and reproducible processing of dynamic image series. The goal of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of 3 highly automated software programs commonly used for absolute MBF and flow reserve (stress/rest MBF) assessment with (82)Rb PET imaging.
METHODS: Dynamic rest and stress (82)Rb PET scans were selected in 30 sequential patient studies performed at 3 separate institutions using 3 different 3-dimensional PET/CT scanners. All 90 scans were processed with 3 different MBF quantification programs, using the same 1-tissue-compartment model. Global (left ventricle) and regional (left anterior descending, left circumflex, and right coronary arteries) MBF and flow reserve were compared among programs using correlation and Bland-Altman analyses.
RESULTS: All scans were processed successfully by the 3 programs, with minimal operator interactions. Global and regional correlations of MBF and flow reserve all had an R(2) of at least 0.92. There was no significant difference in flow values at rest (P = 0.68), stress (P = 0.14), or reserve (P = 0.35) among the 3 programs. Bland-Altman coefficients of reproducibility (1.96 × SD) averaged 0.26 for MBF and 0.29 for flow reserve differences among programs. Average pairwise differences were all less than 10%, indicating good reproducibility for MBF quantification. Global and regional SD from the line of perfect agreement averaged 0.15 and 0.17 mL/min/g, respectively, for MBF, compared with 0.22 and 0.26, respectively, for flow reserve.
CONCLUSION: The 1-tissue-compartment model of (82)Rb tracer kinetics is a reproducible method for quantification of MBF and flow reserve with 3-dimensional PET/CT imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23447656     DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.112219

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  43 in total

Review 1.  Reasons and implications of agreements and disagreements between coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Manish Motwani; Mahsaw Motlagh; Anuj Gupta; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 2.  Quantitative myocardial blood flow with Rubidium-82 PET: a clinical perspective.

Authors:  Christoffer E Hagemann; Adam A Ghotbi; Andreas Kjær; Philip Hasbak
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-10-12

Review 3.  Clinical use of quantitative cardiac perfusion PET: rationale, modalities and possible indications. Position paper of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM).

Authors:  Roberto Sciagrà; Alessandro Passeri; Jan Bucerius; Hein J Verberne; Riemer H J A Slart; Oliver Lindner; Alessia Gimelli; Fabien Hyafil; Denis Agostini; Christopher Übleis; Marcus Hacker
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Simplified quantification of PET myocardial blood flow: The need for technical standardization.

Authors:  Jonathan B Moody; Edward P Ficaro; Venkatesh L Murthy
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-11-05       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 5.  Precision and accuracy of clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow by dynamic PET: A technical perspective.

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

Review 6.  Proceedings of the Cardiac PET Summit, 12 May 2014, Baltimore, MD : 3: Quantitation of myocardial blood flow.

Authors:  Timothy M Bateman; K Lance Gould; Marcelo F Di Carli
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 5.952

7.  Variability in normal myocardial blood flow measurements: physiologic, methodologic, or protocol related?

Authors:  Timothy M Bateman; James A Case
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2014-10-24       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 8.  Quantification of PET Myocardial Blood Flow.

Authors:  Matthieu Pelletier-Galarneau; Patrick Martineau; Georges El Fakhri
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 2.931

9.  Time-frame sampling for 82Rb PET flow quantification: Towards standardization of clinical protocols.

Authors:  Ran Klein; Adrian Ocneanu; Robert A deKemp
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-07-07       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 10.  CFR and FFR assessment with PET and CTA: strengths and limitations.

Authors:  Ryo Nakazato; Ran Heo; Jonathon Leipsic; James K Min
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.931

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.