Andrea G Monroy-Gonzalez1, Luis Eduardo Juarez-Orozco2, Chunlei Han2, Issi R Vedder1, David Vállez García1, Ronald Borra1, Piotr J Slomka3, Sergey V Nesterov2,4, Juhani Knuuti2, Riemer H J A Slart1,5, Erick Alexanderson-Rosas6,7. 1. Medical Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 2. Turku PET Centre, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 3. Departments of Imaging, Medicine, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistry, RAS, St. Petersburg, Russia. 5. Biomedical Photonic Imaging, TechMed Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Physiology, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico. erickalexandersonmd@gmail.com. 7. National Institute of Cardiology Ignacio Chavez, Mexico City, Mexico. erickalexandersonmd@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We explored agreement in the quantification of myocardial perfusion by cross-comparison of implemented software packages (SPs) in three distinguishable patient profile populations. METHODS: We studied 91 scans of patients divided into 3 subgroups based on their semi-quantitative perfusion findings: patients with normal perfusion, with reversible perfusion defects, and with fixed perfusion defects. Rest myocardial blood flow (MBF), stress MBF, and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) were obtained with QPET, SyngoMBF, and Carimas. Agreement between SPs was considered adequate when a pairwise standardized difference was found to be < 0.20 and its corresponding intraclass correlation coefficient was ≥ 0.75. RESULTS: In patients with normal perfusion, two out of three comparisons of global stress MBF quantifications were outside the limits of agreement. In ischemic patients, all comparisons of global stress MBF and MFR were outside the limits of established agreement. In patients with fixed perfusion defects, all SP comparisons of perfusion quantifications were within the limit of agreement. Regionally, agreement of these perfusion estimates was mostly found for the left anterior descending artery vascular territory. CONCLUSION: Reversible defects demonstrated the worst agreement in global stress MBF and MFR and discrepancies showed to be regional dependent. Reproducibility between SPs should not be assumed.
BACKGROUND: We explored agreement in the quantification of myocardial perfusion by cross-comparison of implemented software packages (SPs) in three distinguishable patient profile populations. METHODS: We studied 91 scans of patients divided into 3 subgroups based on their semi-quantitative perfusion findings: patients with normal perfusion, with reversible perfusion defects, and with fixed perfusion defects. Rest myocardial blood flow (MBF), stress MBF, and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) were obtained with QPET, SyngoMBF, and Carimas. Agreement between SPs was considered adequate when a pairwise standardized difference was found to be < 0.20 and its corresponding intraclass correlation coefficient was ≥ 0.75. RESULTS: In patients with normal perfusion, two out of three comparisons of global stress MBF quantifications were outside the limits of agreement. In ischemicpatients, all comparisons of global stress MBF and MFR were outside the limits of established agreement. In patients with fixed perfusion defects, all SP comparisons of perfusion quantifications were within the limit of agreement. Regionally, agreement of these perfusion estimates was mostly found for the left anterior descending artery vascular territory. CONCLUSION: Reversible defects demonstrated the worst agreement in global stress MBF and MFR and discrepancies showed to be regional dependent. Reproducibility between SPs should not be assumed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Myocardial ischemia and infarction; PET; diagnostic and prognostic application; image interpretation; image reconstruction; myocardial blood flow
Authors: Marije E Kamphuis; Henny Kuipers; Jacqueline Verschoor; Johannes C G van Hespen; Marcel J W Greuter; Riemer H J A Slart; Cornelis H Slump Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2022-04-25