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.
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.
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
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
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
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: 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
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
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