Myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) measured with PET have clinical value. SPECT cameras with solid-state detectors can obtain dynamic images for measurement of MBF and MFR. In this study, SPECT measurements of MBF made using 99mTc-tetrofosmin were compared with PET in the same patients. Methods: Thirty-one patients underwent PET MBF rest-stress studies performed with 82Rb or 13N-ammonia within 1 mo of their SPECT study. Dynamic rest-stress measurements were made using a SPECT camera. Kinetic parameters were calculated using a 1-tissue-compartment model and converted to MBF and MFR. Processing with and without corrections for attenuation (+AC and -AC), patient body motion (+MC and -MC), and binding of the tracer to red blood cells (+BB and -BB) was evaluated. Results: Both +BB and +MC improved the accuracy and precision of global SPECT MBF compared with PET MBF, resulting in an average difference of 0.06 ± 0.37 mL/min/g. Global MBF and detection of abnormal MFR were not significantly improved with +AC. Global SPECT MFR with +MC and +BB had an area under the receiver-operating curve of 0.90 (+AC) to 0.95 (-AC) for detecting abnormal PET MFR less than 2.0. Regional analysis produced similar results with an area under the receiver-operating curve of 0.84 (+AC) to 0.87 (-AC). Conclusion: Solid-state SPECT provides global MBF and MFR measurements that differ from PET by 2% ± 32% (MBF) and 2% ± 28% (MFR).
Myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) measured with PET have clinical value. SPECT cameras with solid-state detectors can obtain dynamic images for measurement of MBF and MFR. In this study, SPECT measurements of MBF made using 99mTc-tetrofosmin were compared with PET in the same patients. Methods: Thirty-one patients underwent PET MBF rest-stress studies performed with 82Rb or 13N-ammonia within 1 mo of their SPECT study. Dynamic rest-stress measurements were made using a SPECT camera. Kinetic parameters were calculated using a 1-tissue-compartment model and converted to MBF and MFR. Processing with and without corrections for attenuation (+AC and -AC), patient body motion (+MC and -MC), and binding of the tracer to red blood cells (+BB and -BB) was evaluated. Results: Both +BB and +MC improved the accuracy and precision of global SPECT MBF compared with PET MBF, resulting in an average difference of 0.06 ± 0.37 mL/min/g. Global MBF and detection of abnormal MFR were not significantly improved with +AC. Global SPECT MFR with +MC and +BB had an area under the receiver-operating curve of 0.90 (+AC) to 0.95 (-AC) for detecting abnormal PET MFR less than 2.0. Regional analysis produced similar results with an area under the receiver-operating curve of 0.84 (+AC) to 0.87 (-AC). Conclusion: Solid-state SPECT provides global MBF and MFR measurements that differ from PET by 2% ± 32% (MBF) and 2% ± 28% (MFR).
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: Brian G Abbott; James A Case; Sharmila Dorbala; Andrew J Einstein; James R Galt; Robert Pagnanelli; Renée P Bullock-Palmer; Prem Soman; R Glenn Wells Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Yuka Otaki; Julian Betancur; Tali Sharir; Lien-Hsin Hu; Heidi Gransar; Joanna X Liang; Peyman N Azadani; Andrew J Einstein; Mathews B Fish; Terrence D Ruddy; Philipp A Kaufmann; Albert J Sinusas; Edward J Miller; Timothy M Bateman; Sharmila Dorbala; Marcelo Di Carli; Balaji K Tamarappoo; Guido Germano; Damini Dey; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-06-12
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
Authors: A Krakovich; U Zaretsky; I Moalem; A Naimushin; E Rozen; M Scheinowitz; R Goldkorn Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 5.952