| Literature DB >> 34476780 |
Jussi Schultz1,2, Reetta Siekkinen1,2,3,4, Mojtaba Jafari Tadi4,5, Mika Teräs3,6, Riku Klén2, Eero Lehtonen4, Antti Saraste1,2,7, Jarmo Teuho8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dual-gating reduces respiratory and cardiac motion effects but increases noise. With motion correction, motion is minimized and image quality preserved. We applied motion correction to create end-diastolic respiratory motion corrected images from dual-gated images.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34476780 PMCID: PMC9553777 DOI: 10.1007/s12350-021-02769-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nucl Cardiol ISSN: 1071-3581 Impact factor: 3.872
Subject characteristics with medians and interquartile ranges, unless otherwise indicated
| Demographics | Value |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 59.0 (53.5–65.5) |
| Male, N (%) | 11 (85) |
| Weight (kg) | 91.0 (76.5–100.5) |
| Height (m) | 1.75 (1.70–1.80) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 28.0 (25.6–30.8) |
| Dose (MBq) | 305 (298–311) |
Figure 1Image reconstruction and registration pipeline. 25 dual-gated PET images were reconstructed, with CINE-CT and 4D-CT. Motion correction was performed to respiratory bins containing the diastolic phase, using bin numbers 21 to 25
SUVmean for the myocardium and blood pool
| Myocardium | Blood pool | |
|---|---|---|
| NG | 2.15 (1.48–3.43) | .86 (.79–.95) |
| DG | 1.96 (1.46–3.17) | .82 (.71–.87) |
| MoCo | 1.96 (1.46–3.16) | .82 (.69–.90) |
| MoCo-4D | 2.06* (1.52–3.30) | .80 (.67–0.87) |
Medians and interquartile ranges are reported
*Denotes statistically significant difference (P < .05) between DG and MoCo-4D
Figure 2Standardized uptake values (SUVmean, SUVSD) of the myocardium and blood pool (ns = non-significant, *P < .05, **P < .01 ***P < .001)
Image quality metrics
| CR | SNR | CV (%) | CNR | MWT (mm) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NG | 2.74 (1.85–3.83) | 25.1 (19.4–34.4) | 27.3 (22.2–34.3) | 13.8 (10.0–22.5) | 20.9 (18.3–24.2) |
| DG | 2.76 (1.87–3.83) | 20.3 (11.4–27.7) | 32.5 (28.8–38.0) | 11.1 (5.57–20.7) | 16.8 (14.2–22.2) |
| MoCo | 2.73 (1.82–3.88) | 25.9 (16.2–31.2) | 31.6 (28.0–36.7) | 15.1 (6.58–22.9) | 16.7 (14.2–20.0) |
| MoCo-4D | 2.83* (1.93–4.03) | 27.5* (16.9–39.3) | 32.1* (28.4–36.7) | 14.5* (7.77–30.1) | 16.6* (13.9–18.8) |
Medians and interquantile ranges are reported
*Denotes statistically significant difference (P < .05) between DG and MoCo-4D
Figure 3Image quality metrics (ns=non-significant, *P < .05, **P < .01 ***P < .001)
Figure 4On the left, myocardial wall thickness (MWT) is shown (**P < .01, ***P < .001). On the right, MWT is shown for each subject. MoCo and MoCo-4D show lowest MWT
Figure 5PET images for patient A (female, 54 years, 170 cm, 81 kg, BMI 28.0, 305 MBq)
Figure 6PET images for patient B (male, 54 years, 171 cm, 73 kg, BMI 25.0, 298 MBq)
Figure 7Uptake profiles across the antero-lateral myocardial wall for patients A (Fig. 5) and B (Fig. 6), showing reduced MWT. The peak activity is slightly lower for motion correction with patient B