Bailing Hsu1, Lien-Hsin Hu2, Bang-Hung Yang2, Lung-Ching Chen3, Yen-Kung Chen4, Chien-Hsin Ting2, Guang-Uei Hung5, Wen-Sheng Huang6, Tao-Cheng Wu7. 1. Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri, USA. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 3. Division of Cardiology, Shin Kong Wu-Ho Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Shin Kong Wu-Ho Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chang Bing Show Chwan Memorial Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. wshuang01@gmail.com. 7. Cardiovascular Research Center, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. dcwu@vghtpe.tw.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantitation of 99mTc-Sestamibi (MIBI) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) compared with 13N-Ammonia (NH3) position emission tomography (PET) on the same cohorts. BACKGROUND: Recent advances of SPECT technologies have been applied to develop MBF quantitation as a promising tool to diagnose coronary artery disease (CAD) for areas where PET MBF quantitation is not available. However, whether the SPECT approach can achieve the same level of accuracy as the PET approach for clinical use still needs further investigations. METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers (HVT) and 16 clinical patients with CAD received both MIBI SPECT and NH3 PET flow scans. Dynamic SPECT images acquired with high temporary resolution were fully corrected for physical factors and processed to quantify K1 using the standard compartmental modeling. Human MIBI tracer extraction fraction (EF) was determined by comparing MIBI K1 and NH3 flow on the HVT group and then used to convert flow values from K1 for all subjects. MIBI and NH3 flow values were systematically compared to validate the SPECT approach. RESULTS: The human MIBI EF was determined as [1.0-0.816*exp(-0.267/MBF)]. Global and regional MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) of MIBI SPECT and NH3 PET were highly correlated for all subjects (global R2: MBF = 0.92, MFR = 0.78; regional R2: MBF ≥ 0.88, MFR ≥ 0.71). No significant differences for rest flow, stress flow, and MFR between these two approaches were observed (All p ≥ 0.088). Bland-Altman plots overall revealed small bias between MIBI SPECT and NH3 PET (global: ΔMBF = -0.03Lml/min/g, ΔMFR = 0.07; regional: ΔMBF = -0.07 - 0.06 , ΔMFR = -0.02 - 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitation with SPECT technologies can be accurate to measure myocardial blood flow as PET quantitation while comprehensive imaging factors of SPECT to derive the variability between these two approaches were fully addressed and corrected.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantitation of 99mTc-Sestamibi (MIBI) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) compared with 13N-Ammonia (NH3) position emission tomography (PET) on the same cohorts. BACKGROUND: Recent advances of SPECT technologies have been applied to develop MBF quantitation as a promising tool to diagnose coronary artery disease (CAD) for areas where PET MBF quantitation is not available. However, whether the SPECT approach can achieve the same level of accuracy as the PET approach for clinical use still needs further investigations. METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers (HVT) and 16 clinical patients with CAD received both MIBI SPECT and NH3 PET flow scans. Dynamic SPECT images acquired with high temporary resolution were fully corrected for physical factors and processed to quantify K1 using the standard compartmental modeling. HumanMIBI tracer extraction fraction (EF) was determined by comparing MIBI K1 and NH3 flow on the HVT group and then used to convert flow values from K1 for all subjects. MIBI and NH3 flow values were systematically compared to validate the SPECT approach. RESULTS: The humanMIBI EF was determined as [1.0-0.816*exp(-0.267/MBF)]. Global and regional MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) of MIBI SPECT and NH3 PET were highly correlated for all subjects (global R2: MBF = 0.92, MFR = 0.78; regional R2: MBF ≥ 0.88, MFR ≥ 0.71). No significant differences for rest flow, stress flow, and MFR between these two approaches were observed (All p ≥ 0.088). Bland-Altman plots overall revealed small bias between MIBI SPECT and NH3 PET (global: ΔMBF = -0.03Lml/min/g, ΔMFR = 0.07; regional: ΔMBF = -0.07 - 0.06 , ΔMFR = -0.02 - 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitation with SPECT technologies can be accurate to measure myocardial blood flow as PET quantitation while comprehensive imaging factors of SPECT to derive the variability between these two approaches were fully addressed and corrected.
Authors: K Lance Gould; Nils P Johnson; Timothy M Bateman; Rob S Beanlands; Frank M Bengel; Robert Bober; Paolo G Camici; Manuel D Cerqueira; Benjamin J W Chow; Marcelo F Di Carli; Sharmila Dorbala; Henry Gewirtz; Robert J Gropler; Philipp A Kaufmann; Paul Knaapen; Juhani Knuuti; Michael E Merhige; K Peter Rentrop; Terrence D Ruddy; Heinrich R Schelbert; Thomas H Schindler; Markus Schwaiger; Stefano Sdringola; John Vitarello; Kim A Williams; Donald Gordon; Vasken Dilsizian; Jagat Narula Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Martijn A van Lavieren; Tim P van de Hoef; Krischan D Sjauw; Jan J Piek; Angela Ferrara; Bernard De Bruyne; K Lance Gould Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 6.534
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: Maria Sciammarella; Uttam M Shrestha; Youngho Seo; Grant T Gullberg; Elias H Botvinick Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Sharmila Dorbala; Karthik Ananthasubramaniam; Ian S Armstrong; Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; E Gordon DePuey; Andrew J Einstein; Robert J Gropler; Thomas A Holly; John J Mahmarian; Mi-Ae Park; Donna M Polk; Raymond Russell; Piotr J Slomka; Randall C Thompson; R Glenn Wells Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Konstantin V Zavadovsky; Andrew V Mochula; Alla A Boshchenko; Alexander V Vrublevsky; Andrew E Baev; Alexander L Krylov; Marina O Gulya; Evgeny A Nesterov; Riccardo Liga; Alessia Gimelli Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 5.952