Jeffrey Do1, Terrence D Ruddy1, R Glenn Wells2. 1. Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin St, Ottawa, Canada. 2. Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin St, Ottawa, Canada. gwells@ottawaheart.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measurement of myocardial blood flow (MBF) is feasible using SPECT imaging but the acquisition requires more time than usual. Our study assessed the impact of reducing acquisition times on the accuracy and repeatability of the uptake rate constant (K1). METHODS: Twenty-nine patients underwent two rest/stress studies with Tc-99m-tetrofosmin 18 ± 13 days apart, using a one-day rest/stress dynamic SPECT imaging protocol with a solid-state cardiac camera. A 5-minute static image was acquired prior to tracer injection for subtraction of residual activity, followed immediately by 11-minute of list-mode data collection. Static image acquisition times of 0.5, 1, and 3 minutes and dynamic imaging times of 5, 7, and 9 minutes were simulated by truncating list-mode data. Images were reconstructed with/without attenuation correction and with/without motion correction. Kinetic parameters were calculated using a 1-tissue-compartment model. RESULTS: K1 increased with reduced dynamic but not static imaging time (P < 0.001). The increase in K1 for a 9-minute scan was small (4.7 ± 5.3%) compared with full-length studies. The repeatability of K1 did not change significantly (13 ± 12%, P > 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: A shortened imaging protocol of 3-minute (rest) or 30-second (stress) static image acquisition and 9 minutes of dynamic image acquisition altered K1 by less than 5% compared to a previously validated 11-minute acquisition.
BACKGROUND: Measurement of myocardial blood flow (MBF) is feasible using SPECT imaging but the acquisition requires more time than usual. Our study assessed the impact of reducing acquisition times on the accuracy and repeatability of the uptake rate constant (K1). METHODS: Twenty-nine patients underwent two rest/stress studies with Tc-99m-tetrofosmin 18 ± 13 days apart, using a one-day rest/stress dynamic SPECT imaging protocol with a solid-state cardiac camera. A 5-minute static image was acquired prior to tracer injection for subtraction of residual activity, followed immediately by 11-minute of list-mode data collection. Static image acquisition times of 0.5, 1, and 3 minutes and dynamic imaging times of 5, 7, and 9 minutes were simulated by truncating list-mode data. Images were reconstructed with/without attenuation correction and with/without motion correction. Kinetic parameters were calculated using a 1-tissue-compartment model. RESULTS: K1 increased with reduced dynamic but not static imaging time (P < 0.001). The increase in K1 for a 9-minute scan was small (4.7 ± 5.3%) compared with full-length studies. The repeatability of K1 did not change significantly (13 ± 12%, P > 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: A shortened imaging protocol of 3-minute (rest) or 30-second (stress) static image acquisition and 9 minutes of dynamic image acquisition altered K1 by less than 5% compared to a previously validated 11-minute acquisition.
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: K Lance Gould; Nils P Johnson; Timothy M Bateman; Rob S Beanlands; Frank M Bengel; Robert Bober; Paolo G Camici; Manuel D Cerqueira; Benjamin J W Chow; Marcelo F Di Carli; Sharmila Dorbala; Henry Gewirtz; Robert J Gropler; Philipp A Kaufmann; Paul Knaapen; Juhani Knuuti; Michael E Merhige; K Peter Rentrop; Terrence D Ruddy; Heinrich R Schelbert; Thomas H Schindler; Markus Schwaiger; Stefano Sdringola; John Vitarello; Kim A Williams; Donald Gordon; Vasken Dilsizian; Jagat Narula Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: R Glenn Wells; Brian Marvin; Marlie Poirier; Jennifer Renaud; Robert A deKemp; Terrence D Ruddy Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Moshe Bocher; Ira M Blevis; Leonid Tsukerman; Yigal Shrem; Gil Kovalski; Lana Volokh Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Bernhard A Herzog; Lars Husmann; Ines Valenta; Oliver Gaemperli; Patrick T Siegrist; Fabian M Tay; Nina Burkhard; Christophe A Wyss; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-07-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Rene Nkoulou; Tobias A Fuchs; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Silke M Kuest; Jelena R Ghadri; Julia Stehli; Michael Fiechter; Bernhard A Herzog; Oliver Gaemperli; Ronny R Buechel; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Thomas H Schindler; Alessandra Quercioli; Ines Valenta; Giuseppe Ambrosio; Richard L Wahl; Vasken Dilsizian Journal: Semin Nucl Med Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 4.446
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