Edward P Ficaro1,2, Venkatesh L Murthy2, Benjamin C Lee3, Jonathan B Moody1, Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière1, Amanda C Melvin2, Richard L Weinberg4, James R Corbett1,2. 1. INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions, 3025 Boardwalk St., Suite 200, Ann Arbor, MI, 8108, USA. 2. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions, 3025 Boardwalk St., Suite 200, Ann Arbor, MI, 8108, USA. blee@inviasolutions.com. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient motion can lead to misalignment of left ventricular volumes of interest and subsequently inaccurate quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and flow reserve (MFR) from dynamic PET myocardial perfusion images. We aimed to identify the prevalence of patient motion in both blood and tissue phases and analyze the effects of this motion on MBF and MFR estimates. METHODS: We selected 225 consecutive patients that underwent dynamic stress/rest rubidium-82 chloride (82Rb) PET imaging. Dynamic image series were iteratively reconstructed with 5- to 10-second frame durations over the first 2 minutes for the blood phase and 10 to 80 seconds for the tissue phase. Motion shifts were assessed by 3 physician readers from the dynamic series and analyzed for frequency, magnitude, time, and direction of motion. The effects of this motion isolated in time, direction, and magnitude on global and regional MBF and MFR estimates were evaluated. Flow estimates derived from the motion corrected images were used as the error references. RESULTS: Mild to moderate motion (5-15 mm) was most prominent in the blood phase in 63% and 44% of the stress and rest studies, respectively. This motion was observed with frequencies of 75% in the septal and inferior directions for stress and 44% in the septal direction for rest. Images with blood phase isolated motion had mean global MBF and MFR errors of 2%-5%. Isolating blood phase motion in the inferior direction resulted in mean MBF and MFR errors of 29%-44% in the RCA territory. Flow errors due to tissue phase isolated motion were within 1%. CONCLUSIONS: Patient motion was most prevalent in the blood phase and MBF and MFR errors increased most substantially with motion in the inferior direction. Motion correction focused on these motions is needed to reduce MBF and MFR errors.
BACKGROUND:Patient motion can lead to misalignment of left ventricular volumes of interest and subsequently inaccurate quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and flow reserve (MFR) from dynamic PET myocardial perfusion images. We aimed to identify the prevalence of patient motion in both blood and tissue phases and analyze the effects of this motion on MBF and MFR estimates. METHODS: We selected 225 consecutive patients that underwent dynamic stress/rest rubidium-82 chloride (82Rb) PET imaging. Dynamic image series were iteratively reconstructed with 5- to 10-second frame durations over the first 2 minutes for the blood phase and 10 to 80 seconds for the tissue phase. Motion shifts were assessed by 3 physician readers from the dynamic series and analyzed for frequency, magnitude, time, and direction of motion. The effects of this motion isolated in time, direction, and magnitude on global and regional MBF and MFR estimates were evaluated. Flow estimates derived from the motion corrected images were used as the error references. RESULTS: Mild to moderate motion (5-15 mm) was most prominent in the blood phase in 63% and 44% of the stress and rest studies, respectively. This motion was observed with frequencies of 75% in the septal and inferior directions for stress and 44% in the septal direction for rest. Images with blood phase isolated motion had mean global MBF and MFR errors of 2%-5%. Isolating blood phase motion in the inferior direction resulted in mean MBF and MFR errors of 29%-44% in the RCA territory. Flow errors due to tissue phase isolated motion were within 1%. CONCLUSIONS:Patient motion was most prevalent in the blood phase and MBF and MFR errors increased most substantially with motion in the inferior direction. Motion correction focused on these motions is needed to reduce MBF and MFR errors.
Authors: Venkatesh L Murthy; Masanao Naya; Courtney R Foster; Jon Hainer; Mariya Gaber; Gilda Di Carli; Ron Blankstein; Sharmila Dorbala; Arkadiusz Sitek; Michael J Pencina; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Se Young Chun; Timothy G Reese; Jinsong Ouyang; Bastien Guerin; Ciprian Catana; Xuping Zhu; Nathaniel M Alpert; Georges El Fakhri Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Maria C Ziadi; Robert A Dekemp; Kathryn A Williams; Ann Guo; Benjamin J W Chow; Jennifer M Renaud; Terrence D Ruddy; Niroshi Sarveswaran; Rebecca E Tee; Rob S B Beanlands Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-08-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Masanao Naya; Venkatesh L Murthy; Viviany R Taqueti; Courtney R Foster; Josh Klein; Mariya Garber; Sharmila Dorbala; Jon Hainer; Ron Blankstein; Frederick Resnic; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Thomas Küstner; Martin Schwartz; Petros Martirosian; Sergios Gatidis; Ferdinand Seith; Christopher Gilliam; Thierry Blu; Hadi Fayad; Dimitris Visvikis; F Schick; B Yang; H Schmidt; N F Schwenzer Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Yunhan Yu; Chung Chan; Tianyu Ma; Yaqiang Liu; Jean-Dominique Gallezot; Mika Naganawa; Olivia J Kelada; Mary Germino; Albert J Sinusas; Richard E Carson; Chi Liu Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Alexandru Naum; Marko S Laaksonen; Helena Tuunanen; Vesa Oikonen; Mika Teräs; Jukka Kemppainen; Mikko J Järvisalo; Pirjo Nuutila; Juhani Knuuti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-09-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Maria C Ziadi; Robert A Dekemp; Kathryn Williams; Ann Guo; Jennifer M Renaud; Benjamin J W Chow; Ran Klein; Terrence D Ruddy; May Aung; Linda Garrard; Rob S B Beanlands Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Jonathan B Moody; Keri M Hiller; Benjamin C Lee; Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; James R Corbett; Richard L Weinberg; Venkatesh L Murthy; Edward P Ficaro Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Tao Sun; Yoann Petibon; Paul K Han; Chao Ma; Sally J W Kim; Nathaniel M Alpert; Georges El Fakhri; Jinsong Ouyang Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Benjamin C Lee; Jonathan B Moody; Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; Amanda C Melvin; Richard L Weinberg; James R Corbett; Venkatesh L Murthy; Edward P Ficaro Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Piotr J Slomka; Jonathan B Moody; Robert J H Miller; Jennifer M Renaud; Edward P Ficaro; Ernest V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 5.952
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