Raffaele Giubbini1, Alessia Peli2, Elisa Milan3, Roberto Sciagrà4, Luca Camoni2, Domenico Albano2, Mattia Bertoli2, Mattia Bonacina2, Federica Motta2, Massimo Statuto2, Carlo Alberto Rodella5, Antonio De Agostini5, Raffaella Calabretta4, Francesco Bertagna2. 1. Chair of Nuclear Medicine and Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Medical Imaging, University and Spedali Civili, Piazza Spedali Civili, 1, Brescia, Italy. giubbini@med.unibs.it. 2. Chair of Nuclear Medicine and Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Medical Imaging, University and Spedali Civili, Piazza Spedali Civili, 1, Brescia, Italy. 3. Nuclear Medicine Unit, San Giacomo Apostolo Hospital, Castelfranco Veneto, TV, Italy. 4. Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Science, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 5. Health Physics Department, Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both the myocardial perfusion pattern and myocardial blood flow (MBF) are used to assess patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of this study was to compare the perfusion pattern (using the summed difference score [SDS]) to MBF in a consecutive group of patients undergoing PET/CT with 13 N-ammonia (13NH3). METHODS: 47 consecutive patients, aged 65 ± 12 years (42 men) with known or suspected CAD, underwent vasodilator stress/rest PET/CT with 13NH3 for clinical indications. The SDS was determined by a commercially available software based on a 17-segment model. MBF was measured at rest and during hyperemia by dynamic acquisition and single-compartment model analysis. From the rest and stress MBF, the absolute difference (stress-rest) in myocardial blood flow defined as difference in myocardial blood flow (DMBF) was derived. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between patients with no ischemia (SDS ≤ 1) and those with ischemia (SDS > 1) in CFR (2.84 ± 0.73 vs 2.63 ± 0.89, P = NS) and DMBF (1.34 ± 0.45 vs 1.24 ± 0.53 mL·minute-1·g-1, P = NS). There were however significant regional differences (141 different vascular territories in 47 patients) between these two groups (CFR: 2.84 ± 0.95 vs 2.16 ± 0.57, P < .001 and DMBF: 1.39 ± 0.6 vs 0.87 ± 0.39, P < .0001). The correlation between regional CFR and regional DMBF with SDS was significant (y = 2.7145e-0.059x R = 0.358 and y = 1.2769e-0.119x R = 0.44) CONCLUSION: The SDS is the difference between two measurements (stress-rest) and it correlates better with regional DMBF, which is another measurement that reflects the difference between stress and rest. The correlation is better on regional than global basis.
BACKGROUND: Both the myocardial perfusion pattern and myocardial blood flow (MBF) are used to assess patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of this study was to compare the perfusion pattern (using the summed difference score [SDS]) to MBF in a consecutive group of patients undergoing PET/CT with 13 N-ammonia (13NH3). METHODS: 47 consecutive patients, aged 65 ± 12 years (42 men) with known or suspected CAD, underwent vasodilator stress/rest PET/CT with 13NH3 for clinical indications. The SDS was determined by a commercially available software based on a 17-segment model. MBF was measured at rest and during hyperemia by dynamic acquisition and single-compartment model analysis. From the rest and stress MBF, the absolute difference (stress-rest) in myocardial blood flow defined as difference in myocardial blood flow (DMBF) was derived. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between patients with no ischemia (SDS ≤ 1) and those with ischemia (SDS > 1) in CFR (2.84 ± 0.73 vs 2.63 ± 0.89, P = NS) and DMBF (1.34 ± 0.45 vs 1.24 ± 0.53 mL·minute-1·g-1, P = NS). There were however significant regional differences (141 different vascular territories in 47 patients) between these two groups (CFR: 2.84 ± 0.95 vs 2.16 ± 0.57, P < .001 and DMBF: 1.39 ± 0.6 vs 0.87 ± 0.39, P < .0001). The correlation between regional CFR and regional DMBF with SDS was significant (y = 2.7145e-0.059x R = 0.358 and y = 1.2769e-0.119x R = 0.44) CONCLUSION: The SDS is the difference between two measurements (stress-rest) and it correlates better with regional DMBF, which is another measurement that reflects the difference between stress and rest. The correlation is better on regional than global basis.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2002 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Timothy M Bateman; Vasken Dilsizian; Rob S Beanlands; E Gordon DePuey; Gary V Heller; David A Wolinsky Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Bernhard A Herzog; Lars Husmann; Ines Valenta; Oliver Gaemperli; Patrick T Siegrist; Fabian M Tay; Nina Burkhard; Christophe A Wyss; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-07-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Rene Nkoulou; Tobias A Fuchs; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Silke M Kuest; Jelena R Ghadri; Julia Stehli; Michael Fiechter; Bernhard A Herzog; Oliver Gaemperli; Ronny R Buechel; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Massimo Statuto; Elisa Galli; Francesco Bertagna; Elena Migliorati; Isabella Zanella; Diego Di Lorenzo; Antonio De Agostini; Carlo Rodella; Pietro Apostoli; Luigi Caimi; Raffaele Giubbini; Giorgio Biasiotto Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; Daniel S Berman; David J Maron; G B John Mancini; Sean W Hayes; Pamela M Hartigan; William S Weintraub; Robert A O'Rourke; Marcin Dada; John A Spertus; Bernard R Chaitman; John Friedman; Piotr Slomka; Gary V Heller; Guido Germano; Gilbert Gosselin; Peter Berger; William J Kostuk; Ronald G Schwartz; Merill Knudtson; Emir Veledar; Eric R Bates; Benjamin McCallister; Koon K Teo; William E Boden Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-02-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Josef Machac; Stephen L Bacharach; Timothy M Bateman; Jeroen J Bax; Robert Beanlands; Frank Bengel; Steven R Bergmann; Richard C Brunken; James Case; Dominique Delbeke; Marcelo F DiCarli; Ernest V Garcia; Richard A Goldstein; Robert J Gropler; Mark Travin; Randolph Patterson; Heinrich R Schelbert Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.872
Authors: Hulya Yalcin; Ines Valenta; Min Zhao; Abdel Tahari; Dai-Yin Lu; Takahiro Higuchi; Fatih Yalcin; Nagehan Kucukler; Yalda Soleimanifard; Yun Zhou; Martin G Pomper; Theodore P Abraham; Ben Tsui; Martin A Lodge; Thomas H Schindler; M Roselle Abraham Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 5.952