Literature DB >> 24477406

Impact of point spread function modeling and time-of-flight on myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve measurements for rubidium-82 cardiac PET.

Ian S Armstrong1, Christine M Tonge, Parthiban Arumugam.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Myocardial flow reserve (MFR) obtained from dynamic cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) with rubidium-82 (Rb-82) has been shown to be a useful measurement in assessing coronary artery disease. Advanced PET reconstructions with point spread function modeling and time-of-flight have been shown to improve image quality but also have an impact on kinetic analysis of dynamic data. This study aims to determine the impact of these algorithms on MFR data.
METHODS: Dynamic Rb-82 cardiac PET images from 37 patients were reconstructed with standard and advanced reconstructions. Area under curve (AUC) of the blood input function (BIF), myocardial blood flow (MBF) and MFR were compared with each reconstruction.
RESULTS: No significant differences were seen in MFR for the two reconstructions. A relatively small mean difference in MBF data of +11.9% was observed with advanced reconstruction compared with the standard reconstruction but there was considerable variability in the degree of change (95% confidence intervals of -16.2% to +40.0%). Small systematic relative differences were seen for AUC BIF (mean difference of -6.3%; 95% CI -17.5% to +5.4%).
CONCLUSION: MFR results from Rb-82 dynamic PET appear to be robust when generated by standard or advanced PET reconstructions. Considerable increases in MBF values may occur with advanced reconstructions, and further work is required to fully understand this.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24477406     DOI: 10.1007/s12350-014-9858-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol        ISSN: 1071-3581            Impact factor:   5.952


  20 in total

Review 1.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  Common artifacts in PET myocardial perfusion images due to attenuation-emission misregistration: clinical significance, causes, and solutions.

Authors:  Catalin Loghin; Stefano Sdringola; K Lance Gould
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  Enhanced definition PET for cardiac imaging.

Authors:  Ludovic Le Meunier; Piotr J Slomka; Damini Dey; Amit Ramesh; Louis E J Thomson; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Victor Cheng; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2010-02-12       Impact factor: 5.952

4.  Cardiac PET/CT misregistration causes significant changes in estimated myocardial blood flow.

Authors:  Mahadevan Rajaram; Abdel K Tahari; Andy H Lee; Martin A Lodge; Benjamin Tsui; Stephan Nekolla; Richard L Wahl; Frank M Bengel; Paco E Bravo
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb positron emission tomography: clinical validation with 15O-water.

Authors:  John O Prior; Gilles Allenbach; Ines Valenta; Marek Kosinski; Cyrill Burger; Francis R Verdun; Angelika Bischof Delaloye; Philipp A Kaufmann
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Short-term repeatability of resting myocardial blood flow measurements using rubidium-82 PET imaging.

Authors:  Matthew Efseaff; Ran Klein; Maria C Ziadi; Rob S Beanlands; Robert A deKemp
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 5.952

7.  Consequences of using a simplified kinetic model for dynamic PET data.

Authors:  P G Coxson; R H Huesman; L Borland
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  Variation in quantitative myocardial perfusion due to arterial input selection.

Authors:  Andres F Vasquez; Nils P Johnson; K Lance Gould
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2013-04-10

9.  Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging.

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

10.  Diagnostic accuracy of rest/stress ECG-gated Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET: comparison with ECG-gated Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT.

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

View more
  24 in total

1.  Impaired cardiac PET image quality due to delayed (82)Rubidium dose delivery to the heart.

Authors:  Christina Byrne; Lotte Hahn Enevoldsen; Andreas Kjær; Philip Hasbak
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  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

4.  Evaluation of image reconstruction algorithms encompassing Time-Of-Flight and Point Spread Function modelling for quantitative cardiac PET: phantom studies.

Authors:  L Presotto; L Gianolli; M C Gilardi; V Bettinardi
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Moving towards a better understanding of potential pitfalls in quantitative PET myocardial blood flow.

Authors:  Paul C Cremer; Frank P DiFilippo; Wael A Jaber
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-02-22       Impact factor: 5.952

6.  Time-of-flight in cardiac PET/TC: What do we know and what we should know?

Authors:  Roberta Matheoud; Michela Lecchi
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 5.952

7.  How to reconstruct dynamic cardiac PET data?

Authors:  Piotr J Slomka; Adam M Alessio; Guido Germano
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 5.952

8.  Myocardial perfusion in patients with non-ischaemic systolic heart failure and type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study using Rubidium-82 PET/CT.

Authors:  Christina Byrne; Philip Hasbak; Andreas Kjaer; Jens Jakob Thune; Lars Køber
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 9.  Gating Approaches in Cardiac PET Imaging.

Authors:  Martin Lyngby Lassen; Jacek Kwiecinski; Piotr J Slomka
Journal:  PET Clin       Date:  2019-02-01

10.  The effect of time-of-flight and point spread function modeling on 82Rb myocardial perfusion imaging of obese patients.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.