Matthew J Memmott1, Christine M Tonge2, Kimberley J Saint2, Parthiban Arumugam2. 1. Nuclear Medicine, Central Manchester University Hospitals, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, United Kingdom. Matthew.Memmott@cmft.nhs.uk. 2. Nuclear Medicine, Central Manchester University Hospitals, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient motion has been demonstrated to have a significant impact on the quality and accuracy of rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion PET/CT. This study aimed to investigate the effect on patient motion of two pharmacological stressing agents, adenosine and regadenoson. METHODS AND RESULTS: Dynamic data were retrospectively analyzed in 90 patients undergoing adenosine (n = 30), incremental adenosine (n = 30), or regadenoson (n = 30) rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion PET/CT. Severity of motion was scored qualitatively using a four-point (0-3) scale and quantitatively using frame-to-frame pixel shifts. The type of motion, returning or non-returning, and the frame in which it occurred were also recorded. There were significant differences in both the qualitative and quantitative scores comparing regadenoson to adenosine (P = .025 and P < .001) and incremental adenosine (P = .014, P = .015), respectively. The difference in scores between adenosine and incremental adenosine was not significant. Where motion was present, significantly more adenosine patients were classed as non-returning (P = .018). The median frames for motion occurring were 12 for regadenoson and 14 for both adenosine cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of stressing protocol impacts significantly on patient motion. Patients stressed with regadenoson have significantly lower motion scores than those stressed with adenosine, using local protocols. This motion is more likely to be associated with a drift of the heart away from a baseline position, coinciding with the termination of infusion.
BACKGROUND:Patient motion has been demonstrated to have a significant impact on the quality and accuracy of rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion PET/CT. This study aimed to investigate the effect on patient motion of two pharmacological stressing agents, adenosine and regadenoson. METHODS AND RESULTS: Dynamic data were retrospectively analyzed in 90 patients undergoing adenosine (n = 30), incremental adenosine (n = 30), or regadenoson (n = 30) rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion PET/CT. Severity of motion was scored qualitatively using a four-point (0-3) scale and quantitatively using frame-to-frame pixel shifts. The type of motion, returning or non-returning, and the frame in which it occurred were also recorded. There were significant differences in both the qualitative and quantitative scores comparing regadenoson to adenosine (P = .025 and P < .001) and incremental adenosine (P = .014, P = .015), respectively. The difference in scores between adenosine and incremental adenosine was not significant. Where motion was present, significantly more adenosinepatients were classed as non-returning (P = .018). The median frames for motion occurring were 12 for regadenoson and 14 for both adenosine cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of stressing protocol impacts significantly on patient motion. Patients stressed with regadenoson have significantly lower motion scores than those stressed with adenosine, using local protocols. This motion is more likely to be associated with a drift of the heart away from a baseline position, coinciding with the termination of infusion.
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: Jonghye Woo; Balaji Tamarappoo; Damini Dey; Ryo Nakazato; Ludovic Le Meunier; Amit Ramesh; Joel Lazewatsky; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ami E Iskandrian; Timothy M Bateman; Luiz Belardinelli; Brent Blackburn; Manuel D Cerqueira; Robert C Hendel; Hsiao Lieu; John J Mahmarian; Ann Olmsted; S Richard Underwood; João Vitola; Whedy Wang Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.952
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: Gong Zhao; Axel Linke; Xiaobin Xu; Manuel Ochoa; Francis Belloni; Luiz Belardinelli; Thomas H Hintze Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2003-09-03 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Edward P Ficaro; Venkatesh L Murthy; Benjamin C Lee; Jonathan B Moody; Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; Amanda C Melvin; Richard L Weinberg; James R Corbett Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Jonathon A Nye; Marina Piccinelli; Doyeon Hwang; Charles David Cooke; Jin Chul Paeng; Joo Myung Lee; Sang-Geon Cho; Russell Folks; Hee-Seung Bom; Bon-Kwon Koo; Ernest V Garcia Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 4.506