| Literature DB >> 32064281 |
Chaitanya Rojulpote1, Siavash Mehdizadeh Seraj1, Mahdi Zirakchian Zadeh2, Divya Yadav1, William Y Raynor1, Esha Kothekar1, Abdullah Al-Zaghal1, Thomas J Werner1, Oke Gerke3, Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen3,4, Abass Alavi1,4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the association between blood pressure and LV myocardial uptake of FDG, hypothesizing that subjects with raised blood pressure would have higher FDG uptake.Entities:
Keywords: Blood pressure; FDG; Myocardial metabolic uptake; PET/CT
Year: 2020 PMID: 32064281 PMCID: PMC6994784 DOI: 10.22038/aojnmb.2019.41530.1282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol ISSN: 2322-5718
Subject demographic
|
| |
|---|---|
|
| 46±13.5 (32.5-59.5) |
|
| 127.2±15.3 (111.9-142.5) |
|
| 76.5±10.0 (66.5-86.5) |
|
| 3.0±0.8 (2.2-3.8) |
|
| 4.9±0.9 (4.0-5.8) |
|
| 1.1±0.7 (0.4-1.8) |
|
| 8.8±2.5 (6.3-11.3) |
|
| 5.5±0.5 (5.0-6.0) |
|
| 33.8±4.1 (29.7-37.9) |
|
| 3 |
Values are mean ±SD, n (%). HbA1c = Glycated hemoglobin.
Figure 1These scans belong to a 62 years old female. Regions of interest were manually drawn around the anatomical borders of the left ventricle on fused 18F-FDG PET/CT axial slices. (a=superior, b=middle, c= inferior)
Figure 2Box plot comparing SUVmean of systolic and diastolic blood pressure
Figure 3Correlations between SUVmean and Systolic, Diastolic, and Mean Arterial Pressure. Significant correlations were present for 18F-FDG uptake in all three pressures; the standard error for the slope estimate was 0.023, 0.035, and 0.032 in A, B, and C, respectively
Figure 4Visual depiction of correlations between normal SP (<120mmHg) and SUVmean (red) vs. high SP (>120mmHg) and SUVmean (orange) (left); Normal DP (<80mmHg) and SUVmean (red) vs. high DP (>80mmHg) and SUVmean (orange) (right)
Multivariable linear regression of DP (N=78, R-squared=0.16, adjusted R-squared=0.07)
| Variable | Point Estimate | 95% CI | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average DP | 0.12 | 0.03 – 0.20 | 0.006 |
| Gender | 0.57 | -1.04 – 2.18 | 0.48 |
| Age | 0.35 | -0.02 – 0.09 | 0.25 |
| LDL cholesterol | 0.49 | -0.49 – 1.47 | 0.32 |
| Fasting plasma glucose | -0.76 | -2.48 – 0.95 | 0.38 |
| HbA1c | -0.09 | -0.29 – 0.11 | 0.38 |
| Homocystine | -0.02 | -0.35 – 0.30 | 0.89 |
Multivariable linear regression of SP (N=78, R-squared=0.13, adjusted R-squared=0.04)
| Variable | Point Estimate | 95% CI | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.06 | 0.01 – 0.12 | 0.026 |
|
| 0.42 | -1.22 – 2.07 | 0.61 |
|
| 0.03 | -0.03 – 0.09 | 0.34 |
|
| 0.64 | -0.34 – 1.62 | 0.19 |
|
| -0.39 | -2.12 – 1.33 | 0.65 |
|
| -0.09 | -0.29 – 0.11 | 0.37 |
|
| 0.29 | -0.29 – 0.35 | 0.86 |
Multivariable linear regression of MABP (N=78, R-squared=0.16, adjusted R- squared=0.07)
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.11 | 0.03 – 0.18 | 0.007 |
|
| 0.50 | -1.11 – 2.11 | 0.54 |
|
| 0.03 | -0.03 – 0.09 | 0.31 |
|
| 0.53 | -0.44 – 1.50 | 0.28 |
|
| -0.62 | -2.31 – 1.08 | 0.47 |
|
| -0.10 | -0.30 – 0.10 | 0.34 |
|
| -0.01 | -0.34 – 0.31 | 0.93 |
Summary statistics for one-way ANOVA and pairwise comparisons by systolic and diastolic BP
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.04* (3, 82) | |
| Normal: <120 | 3.82 (2.48)1 | |
| Elevated: 120-129 | 5.55 (3.38)2 | |
| Stage 1: 130-139 | 6.54 (3.99)3 | |
| Stage 2: >140 | 5.97 (3.54)4 | |
|
| 0.03* (2, 83) | |
| Normal: <80 | 4.55 (2.97)a | |
| Stage 1: 80-89 | 6.64 (3.46)b | |
| Stage 2: >90 | 6.31 (4.57)c | |
Note. *p < .05. Systolic groups are labelled with numerical superscripts and significance was found between the following groups: 1 & 2, 1 & 3, 1 & 4. Diastolic groups are labelled with alphabetical superscripts and significance was found between the following groups: a & b.
Figure 5Bland-Altman plots displaying intra- (LEFT) and inter-rater agreement (RIGHT) of repeated SUVmean measurements
Bland-Altman limits of agreement
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Rater 1: rating 1 vs. rating 2 | 0.055 (0.253) | -0.44 to 0.55 |
| Rater 1 vs. rater 2 | 0.164 (0.376) | -0.57 to 0.90 |