Robert M Bober, Richard V Milani, Nadia I Abelhad, Cruz Velasco-Gonzalez, Merrill H Stewart, Daniel P Morin
{"title":"使用当代三维心脏模拟 PET-CT 成像技术，快速与慢速铷-82 输注曲线以及心肌灌注的测试-重复精度。","authors":"Robert M Bober, Richard V Milani, Nadia I Abelhad, Cruz Velasco-Gonzalez, Merrill H Stewart, Daniel P Morin","doi":"10.1016/j.nuclcard.2024.102059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>On legacy 2D positron emission tomography (PET) systems utilizing a 50 mL/min Rb-82 profile, test-retest precision of quantitative perfusion is ∼10%. It is unclear whether Rb-82 infusion rate significantly impacts quantitative perfusion and/or image quality on modern analog 3D PET-CT systems. We aimed to determine whether the Rb-82 infusion profile significantly impacts test-retest precision of quantitative perfusion, perfusion metrics, and/or image quality on a modern analog 3D PET-CT scanner.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety-eight volunteers from 3 distinct groups: healthy volunteers (Normals), patients with risk factors, and/or coronary disease (Clinicals) and patients with prior transmural myocardial infarctions (Infarcts), underwent cardiac stress testing on an analog 3D PET-CT. Participants received 3 consecutive resting scans and 2 consecutive stress scans, minutes apart, with two randomly assigned Rb-82 infusion profiles: 50 mL/min (fast [F]) and 20 mL/min (slow [S]). Perfusion metrics (resting (rMBF) and stress myocardial blood flow (sMBF)) were calculated using HeartSee software. Coefficients of variance (COV), repeatability (RC), MBF, and image quality metrics were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>rMBF correlated well between F and S profiles, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranging .91-.93. sMBF was highly correlated between F and S profiles (ICC = .97). Fast and slow profiles were associated with similar same-day test-retest precision (COV 11.5% vs 11.3% (P = .77); RC 21.5% vs 22.6%, for F-F vs S-S). There were no clinically significant differences in MBF values between F and S profiles. Image quality metrics were similar between the 2 profiles.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are no clinically significant differences in precision, perfusion metrics, or image quality between Rb-82 fast and slow infusions using a contemporary analog 3D PET-CT.</p>","PeriodicalId":16476,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nuclear Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":"102059"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fast vs slow rubidium-82 infusion profiles and test-retest precision of myocardial perfusion using contemporary 3D cardiac analog positron emission tomography-computed tomography imaging.\",\"authors\":\"Robert M Bober, Richard V Milani, Nadia I Abelhad, Cruz Velasco-Gonzalez, Merrill H Stewart, Daniel P Morin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.nuclcard.2024.102059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>On legacy 2D positron emission tomography (PET) systems utilizing a 50 mL/min Rb-82 profile, test-retest precision of quantitative perfusion is ∼10%. It is unclear whether Rb-82 infusion rate significantly impacts quantitative perfusion and/or image quality on modern analog 3D PET-CT systems. We aimed to determine whether the Rb-82 infusion profile significantly impacts test-retest precision of quantitative perfusion, perfusion metrics, and/or image quality on a modern analog 3D PET-CT scanner.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety-eight volunteers from 3 distinct groups: healthy volunteers (Normals), patients with risk factors, and/or coronary disease (Clinicals) and patients with prior transmural myocardial infarctions (Infarcts), underwent cardiac stress testing on an analog 3D PET-CT. Participants received 3 consecutive resting scans and 2 consecutive stress scans, minutes apart, with two randomly assigned Rb-82 infusion profiles: 50 mL/min (fast [F]) and 20 mL/min (slow [S]). Perfusion metrics (resting (rMBF) and stress myocardial blood flow (sMBF)) were calculated using HeartSee software. Coefficients of variance (COV), repeatability (RC), MBF, and image quality metrics were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>rMBF correlated well between F and S profiles, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranging .91-.93. sMBF was highly correlated between F and S profiles (ICC = .97). Fast and slow profiles were associated with similar same-day test-retest precision (COV 11.5% vs 11.3% (P = .77); RC 21.5% vs 22.6%, for F-F vs S-S). There were no clinically significant differences in MBF values between F and S profiles. Image quality metrics were similar between the 2 profiles.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are no clinically significant differences in precision, perfusion metrics, or image quality between Rb-82 fast and slow infusions using a contemporary analog 3D PET-CT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16476,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Nuclear Cardiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"102059\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Nuclear Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclcard.2024.102059\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nuclear Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclcard.2024.102059","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Fast vs slow rubidium-82 infusion profiles and test-retest precision of myocardial perfusion using contemporary 3D cardiac analog positron emission tomography-computed tomography imaging.
Background: On legacy 2D positron emission tomography (PET) systems utilizing a 50 mL/min Rb-82 profile, test-retest precision of quantitative perfusion is ∼10%. It is unclear whether Rb-82 infusion rate significantly impacts quantitative perfusion and/or image quality on modern analog 3D PET-CT systems. We aimed to determine whether the Rb-82 infusion profile significantly impacts test-retest precision of quantitative perfusion, perfusion metrics, and/or image quality on a modern analog 3D PET-CT scanner.
Methods: Ninety-eight volunteers from 3 distinct groups: healthy volunteers (Normals), patients with risk factors, and/or coronary disease (Clinicals) and patients with prior transmural myocardial infarctions (Infarcts), underwent cardiac stress testing on an analog 3D PET-CT. Participants received 3 consecutive resting scans and 2 consecutive stress scans, minutes apart, with two randomly assigned Rb-82 infusion profiles: 50 mL/min (fast [F]) and 20 mL/min (slow [S]). Perfusion metrics (resting (rMBF) and stress myocardial blood flow (sMBF)) were calculated using HeartSee software. Coefficients of variance (COV), repeatability (RC), MBF, and image quality metrics were compared.
Results: rMBF correlated well between F and S profiles, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranging .91-.93. sMBF was highly correlated between F and S profiles (ICC = .97). Fast and slow profiles were associated with similar same-day test-retest precision (COV 11.5% vs 11.3% (P = .77); RC 21.5% vs 22.6%, for F-F vs S-S). There were no clinically significant differences in MBF values between F and S profiles. Image quality metrics were similar between the 2 profiles.
Conclusions: There are no clinically significant differences in precision, perfusion metrics, or image quality between Rb-82 fast and slow infusions using a contemporary analog 3D PET-CT.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology is the only journal in the world devoted to this dynamic and growing subspecialty. Physicians and technologists value the Journal not only for its peer-reviewed articles, but also for its timely discussions about the current and future role of nuclear cardiology. Original articles address all aspects of nuclear cardiology, including interpretation, diagnosis, imaging equipment, and use of radiopharmaceuticals. As the official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the Journal also brings readers the latest information emerging from the Society''s task forces and publishes guidelines and position papers as they are adopted.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
