Nicolas J Guehl1, Marc D Normandin1, Dustin W Wooten1, Guy Rozen2, Arkadiusk Sitek1, Jeremy Ruskin2, Timothy M Shoup1, Leon M Ptaszek1,2, Georges El Fakhri1, Nathaniel M Alpert3. 1. Gordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 3. Gordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. alpert@pet.mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 18F-labeled myocardial flow agents are becoming available for clinical application but the ∼2 hour half-life of 18F complicates their clinical application for rest-stress measurements. The goal of this work is to evaluate in a pig model a single-scan method which provides quantitative rest-stress blood flow in less than 15 minutes. METHODS: Single-scan rest-stress measurements were made using 18F-Flurpiridaz. Nine scans were performed in healthy pigs and seven scans were performed in injured pigs. A two-injection, single-scan protocol was used in which an adenosine infusion was started 4 minutes after the first injection of 18F-Flurpiridaz and followed either 3 or 6 minutes later by a second radiotracer injection. In two pigs, microsphere flow measurements were made at rest and during stress. Dynamic images were reoriented into the short axis view, and regions of interest (ROIs) for the 17 myocardial segments were defined in bull's eye fashion. PET data were fitted with MGH2, a kinetic model with time varying kinetic parameters, in which blood flow changes abruptly with the introduction of adenosine. Rest and stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) were estimated simultaneously. RESULTS: The first 12-14 minutes of rest-stress PET data were fitted in detail by the MGH2 model, yielding MBF measurement with a mean precision of 0.035 ml/min/cc. Mean myocardial blood flow across pigs was 0.61 ± 0.11 mL/min/cc at rest and 1.06 ± 0.19 mL/min/cc at stress in healthy pigs and 0.36 ± 0.20 mL/min/cc at rest and 0.62 ± 0.24 mL/min/cc at stress in the ischemic area. Good agreement was obtained with microsphere flow measurement (slope = 1.061 ± 0.017, intercept = 0.051 ± 0.017, mean difference 0.096 ± 0.18 ml/min/cc). CONCLUSION: Accurate rest and stress blood flow estimation can be obtained in less than 15 min of PET acquisition. The method is practical and easy to implement suggesting the possibility of clinical translation.
PURPOSE: 18F-labeled myocardial flow agents are becoming available for clinical application but the ∼2 hour half-life of 18F complicates their clinical application for rest-stress measurements. The goal of this work is to evaluate in a pig model a single-scan method which provides quantitative rest-stress blood flow in less than 15 minutes. METHODS: Single-scan rest-stress measurements were made using 18F-Flurpiridaz. Nine scans were performed in healthy pigs and seven scans were performed in injured pigs. A two-injection, single-scan protocol was used in which an adenosine infusion was started 4 minutes after the first injection of 18F-Flurpiridaz and followed either 3 or 6 minutes later by a second radiotracer injection. In two pigs, microsphere flow measurements were made at rest and during stress. Dynamic images were reoriented into the short axis view, and regions of interest (ROIs) for the 17 myocardial segments were defined in bull's eye fashion. PET data were fitted with MGH2, a kinetic model with time varying kinetic parameters, in which blood flow changes abruptly with the introduction of adenosine. Rest and stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) were estimated simultaneously. RESULTS: The first 12-14 minutes of rest-stress PET data were fitted in detail by the MGH2 model, yielding MBF measurement with a mean precision of 0.035 ml/min/cc. Mean myocardial blood flow across pigs was 0.61 ± 0.11 mL/min/cc at rest and 1.06 ± 0.19 mL/min/cc at stress in healthy pigs and 0.36 ± 0.20 mL/min/cc at rest and 0.62 ± 0.24 mL/min/cc at stress in the ischemic area. Good agreement was obtained with microsphere flow measurement (slope = 1.061 ± 0.017, intercept = 0.051 ± 0.017, mean difference 0.096 ± 0.18 ml/min/cc). CONCLUSION: Accurate rest and stress blood flow estimation can be obtained in less than 15 min of PET acquisition. The method is practical and easy to implement suggesting the possibility of clinical translation.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Waren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Jamshid Maddahi; Johannes Czernin; Joel Lazewatsky; Sung-Cheng Huang; Magnus Dahlbom; Heinrich Schelbert; Richard Sparks; Alexander Ehlgen; Paul Crane; Qi Zhu; Marybeth Devine; Michael Phelps Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: R E Stewart; M Schwaiger; E Molina; J Popma; G M Gacioch; M Kalus; S Squicciarini; Z R al-Aouar; A Schork; D E Kuhl Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1991-06-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Padmaja Yalamanchili; Eric Wexler; Megan Hayes; Ming Yu; Jody Bozek; Mikhail Kagan; Heike S Radeke; Michael Azure; Ajay Purohit; David S Casebier; Simon P Robinson Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-10-22 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: René R S Packard; Sung-Cheng Huang; Magnus Dahlbom; Johannes Czernin; Jamshid Maddahi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-07-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ibrahim Danad; Pieter G Raijmakers; Yolande E Appelman; Hendrik J Harms; Stefan de Haan; Mijntje L P van den Oever; Cornelis van Kuijk; Cornelis P Allaart; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Mark Lubberink; Albert C van Rossum; Paul Knaapen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Nicolas J Guehl; Marc D Normandin; Dustin W Wooten; Guy Rozen; Jeremy N Ruskin; Timothy M Shoup; Jonghye Woo; Leon M Ptaszek; Georges El Fakhri; Nathaniel M Alpert Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Nicolas J Guehl; Matthieu Pelletier-Galarneau; Dustin W Wooten; J Luis Guerrero; Aurélie Kas; Marc D Normandin; Georges El Fakhri; Nathaniel M Alpert Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Venkatesh L Murthy; Edward P Ficaro; Jonathan B Moody; Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; Tomoe Hagio; Christopher Buckley; Richard L Weinberg; James R Corbett Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Xinyu Chen; Steven P Rowe; Constantin Lapa; Mehrbod S Javadi; Takahiro Higuchi Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 2.357