Yuka Otaki1, Osamu Manabe1,2, Robert J H Miller1, Alain Manrique3, Catherine Nganoa3, Nathaniel Roth4, Daniel S Berman1, Guido Germano1, Piotr J Slomka5, Denis Agostini3. 1. Departments of Imaging and Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hokkaido University of Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHU Cote de Nacre, Normandy University, Caen, France. 4. Spectrum Dynamics Medical Ltd., Caesarea, Israel. 5. Departments of Imaging and Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. slomkap@cshs.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared quantification of MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) with a 99mTc-sestamibi CZT-SPECT to 15O-water PET. METHODS: SPECT MBF for thirty patients in the WATERDAY study was re-analyzed by QPET software with motion correction and optimal placement of the arterial input function. 15O-water PET MBF was re-quantified using dedicated software. Inter-operator variability was assessed using repeatability coefficients (RPC). RESULTS: Significant correlations were observed between global (r = 0.91, P < 0.001) and regional MBF (r = 0.86, P < 0.001) with SPECT compared to PET. Global MBF (rest 0.95 vs 1.05 ml/min/g, P = 0.07; stress 2.62 vs 2.68 mL/min/g, P = 0.17) and MFR (2.65 vs 2.75, P = 0.86) were similar between SPECT and PET. Rest (0.81 vs 0.98 mL/min/g, P = 0.03) and stress MBF (1.98 vs 2.61 mL/min/g, P = 0.01) in right coronary artery (RCA) were lower with SPECT compared to PET. However, MFR in the RCA territory was similar (2.54 vs 2.77, P = 0.21). The SPECT-PET RPC for global MBFs and MFR were 0.95 mL/min/g and 0.94, with inter-observer RPC of 0.59 mL/min/g and 0.74, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MBF and MFR derived from CZT-SPECT with motion correction and optimal placement of the arterial input function showed good agreement with 15O-water PET, as well as low inter-operator variability.
BACKGROUND: We compared quantification of MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) with a 99mTc-sestamibi CZT-SPECT to 15O-water PET. METHODS: SPECT MBF for thirty patients in the WATERDAY study was re-analyzed by QPET software with motion correction and optimal placement of the arterial input function. 15O-water PET MBF was re-quantified using dedicated software. Inter-operator variability was assessed using repeatability coefficients (RPC). RESULTS: Significant correlations were observed between global (r = 0.91, P < 0.001) and regional MBF (r = 0.86, P < 0.001) with SPECT compared to PET. Global MBF (rest 0.95 vs 1.05 ml/min/g, P = 0.07; stress 2.62 vs 2.68 mL/min/g, P = 0.17) and MFR (2.65 vs 2.75, P = 0.86) were similar between SPECT and PET. Rest (0.81 vs 0.98 mL/min/g, P = 0.03) and stress MBF (1.98 vs 2.61 mL/min/g, P = 0.01) in right coronary artery (RCA) were lower with SPECT compared to PET. However, MFR in the RCA territory was similar (2.54 vs 2.77, P = 0.21). The SPECT-PET RPC for global MBFs and MFR were 0.95 mL/min/g and 0.94, with inter-observer RPC of 0.59 mL/min/g and 0.74, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MBF and MFR derived from CZT-SPECT with motion correction and optimal placement of the arterial input function showed good agreement with 15O-water PET, as well as low inter-operator variability.