BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of coronary disease and microvascular dysfunction may be improved by comparing myocardial perfusion scans with a database defining the lower limit of normal myocardial blood flow and flow reserve (MFR). To maximize disease detection sensitivity, a small normal range is desirable. Both (13)N-ammonia and (82)Rb tracers are used to quantify blood flow and MFR using positron emission tomography (PET). The goal of this study was to investigate the trade-off between noise and accuracy in both (82)Rb and (13)N-ammonia normal databases formed using a net retention model. METHODS: Fourteen subjects with <5% risk of CAD underwent rest and stress (82)Rb and (13)N-ammonia dynamic PET imaging in a randomized order within 2 weeks. Myocardial blood flow was quantified using a one-compartment model for (82)Rb, and a two-compartment model for (13)N-ammonia. A simplified model was used to estimate tracer retention, with tracer-specific net extraction functions derived to obtain flow estimates. RESULTS: Normal variability of retention reserve was equivalent for both tracers (±15% globally, ±16% regionally) and was lower in comparison to compartment model results (P < .05). The two-compartment model for (13)N-ammonia had the smallest normal range of global blood flow resulting in a lower limit of normal MFR = 2.2 (mean - 2 SD). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the retention model may have higher sensitivity for detection and localization of abnormal flow and MFR using (82)Rb and (13)N-ammonia, whereas the (13)N-ammonia two-compartment model has higher precision for absolute flow quantification.
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of coronary disease and microvascular dysfunction may be improved by comparing myocardial perfusion scans with a database defining the lower limit of normal myocardial blood flow and flow reserve (MFR). To maximize disease detection sensitivity, a small normal range is desirable. Both (13)N-ammonia and (82)Rb tracers are used to quantify blood flow and MFR using positron emission tomography (PET). The goal of this study was to investigate the trade-off between noise and accuracy in both (82)Rb and (13)N-ammonia normal databases formed using a net retention model. METHODS: Fourteen subjects with <5% risk of CAD underwent rest and stress (82)Rb and (13)N-ammonia dynamic PET imaging in a randomized order within 2 weeks. Myocardial blood flow was quantified using a one-compartment model for (82)Rb, and a two-compartment model for (13)N-ammonia. A simplified model was used to estimate tracer retention, with tracer-specific net extraction functions derived to obtain flow estimates. RESULTS: Normal variability of retention reserve was equivalent for both tracers (±15% globally, ±16% regionally) and was lower in comparison to compartment model results (P < .05). The two-compartment model for (13)N-ammonia had the smallest normal range of global blood flow resulting in a lower limit of normal MFR = 2.2 (mean - 2 SD). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the retention model may have higher sensitivity for detection and localization of abnormal flow and MFR using (82)Rb and (13)N-ammonia, whereas the (13)N-ammonia two-compartment model has higher precision for absolute flow quantification.
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: T R DeGrado; M W Hanson; T G Turkington; D M Delong; D A Brezinski; J P Vallée; L W Hedlund; J Zhang; F Cobb; M J Sullivan; R E Coleman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 1996 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.952
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: Riikka Lautamäki; Richard T George; Kakuya Kitagawa; Takahiro Higuchi; Jennifer Merrill; Corina Voicu; Anthony DiPaula; Stephan G Nekolla; João A C Lima; Albert C Lardo; Frank M Bengel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-11-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: C A Nienaber; O Ratib; S S Gambhir; J Krivokapich; S C Huang; M E Phelps; H R Schelbert Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1991-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Y Choi; S C Huang; R A Hawkins; W G Kuhle; M Dahlbom; C K Hoh; J Czernin; M E Phelps; H R Schelbert Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 10.057
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: 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: Venkatesh L Murthy; Timothy M Bateman; Rob S Beanlands; Daniel S Berman; Salvador Borges-Neto; Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; Manuel D Cerqueira; Robert A deKemp; E Gordon DePuey; Vasken Dilsizian; Sharmila Dorbala; Edward P Ficaro; Ernest V Garcia; Henry Gewirtz; Gary V Heller; Howard C Lewin; Saurabh Malhotra; April Mann; Terrence D Ruddy; Thomas H Schindler; Ronald G Schwartz; Piotr J Slomka; Prem Soman; Marcelo F Di Carli; Andrew Einstein; Raymond Russell; James R Corbett Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Etienne Croteau; Jennifer M Renaud; Matthew McDonald; Ran Klein; Jean N DaSilva; Rob S B Beanlands; Robert A deKemp Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-05 Impact factor: 9.236