PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-3 (3)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Repeatability of regional myocardial blood flow calculation in 82Rb PET imaging 
Background
We evaluated the repeatability of the calculation of myocardial blood flow (MBF) at rest and pharmacological stress, and calculated the coronary flow reserve (CFR) utilizing 82Rb PET imaging. The aim of the research was to prove high repeatability for global MBF and CFR values and good repeatability for regional MBF and CFR values. The results will have significant impact on cardiac PET imaging in terms of making it more affordable and increasing its use.
Methods
12 normal volunteers were imaged at rest and during pharmacological stress, with 2220 MBq of 82Rb each. A GE Advance PET system was used to acquire dynamic 50-frame studies. MBF was calculated with a 2-compartmental model using a modified PMOD program (PMOD; University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland). Two differential equations, describing a 2-compartmental model, were solved by numerical integration and using Levenberg-Marquardt's method for fitting data. The PMOD program defines 16 standard segments and calculates myocardial flow for each segment, as well as average septal, anterior, lateral, inferior and global flow. Repeatability was evaluated according to the method of Bland and Altman.
Results
Global rest and stress MBF, as well as global CFR, showed very good repeatability. No significant differences were found between the paired resting global MBF (0.63 ± 0.13 vs. 0.64 ± 0.13 mL/min/g; mean difference, -1.0% ± 2.6%) and the stress global MBF (1.37 ± 0.23 vs. 1.37 ± 0.24; mean difference, 0.1% ± 2.3%). Global CFR was highly reproducible (2.25 ± 0.56 vs. 2.22 ± 0.54, P = not statistically significant; mean difference, 1.3% ± 14.3%). Repeatability coefficients for global rest MBF were 0.033 (5.2%) and stress MBF 0.062 (4.5%) mL/min/g. Regional rest and stress MBF and CFR have shown good reproducibility. The average per sector repeatability coefficients for rest MBF were 0.056 (8.5%) and stress MBF 0.089 (6.3%) mL/min/g, and average repeatability coefficient for CFR was 0.25 (10.6%).
Conclusion
The results of the study show that software calculation of MBF and CFR with 82Rb myocardial PET imaging is highly repeatable for global values and has good repeatability for regional values.
doi:10.1186/1756-6649-9-2
PMCID: PMC2646684  PMID: 19178700
2.  Comparison of 2D, 3D high dose and 3D low dose gated myocardial 82Rb PET imaging 
Background
We compared 2D, 3D high dose (HD) and 3D low dose (LD) gated myocardial Rb-82 PET imaging in 16 normal human studies. The main goal in the paper is to evaluate whether the images obtained by a 3D LD studies are still of comparable clinical quality to the images obtained with the 2D HD or 3D HD studies.
Methods
All 2D and 3D HD studies were performed with 2220 MBq of Rb-82. The 3D LD were performed with 740 MBq of Rb-82. A GE Advance PET system was used for acquisition. Polar maps were created and used to calculate noise among (NAS) and within (NWS) the segments in the noise analysis. In addition, the contrast between left ventricular (LV) wall and LV cavity was also analysed. For 13 subjects, ejection fraction (EF) on 2D and 3D studies was calculated using QGS program.
Results
For the H20 reconstruction filter, the mean contrast in mid-ventricular short-axis slice was 0.33 ± 0.06 for 2D studies. The same contrast for the 3D HD studies was 0.38 ± 0.07 and for 3D LD, it was 0.34 ± 0.08. For the 6 volunteers where 3D HD was used, NAS was 3.64*10-4 and NWS was 1.79*10-2 for 2D studies, and NAS was 3.70*10-4 and NWS was 1.85*10-2 for 3D HD studies, respectively. For the other 10 volunteers where 3D LD was used, NAS was 3.85*10-4 and NWS was 1.82*10-2 for the 2D studies, and NAS was 5.58*10-4 and NWS was 1.91*10-2 for the 3D LD studies, respectively. For the sharper H13 filter, the data followed the same pattern, with slightly higher values of contrast and noise. EF values in 2D and 3D were close. The Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.90. The average difference from 13 subjects was 8.3%.
Conclusion
2D and 3D HD gating Rb-82 PET cardiac studies have similar contrast, ejection fractions and noise levels. 3D LD gating imaging, gave comparable results in terms of contrast, EF and noise to either 2D or 3D HD gating PET imaging. 3D LD PET gated imaging can make Rb-82 PET cardiac imaging more affordable with significantly less radiation exposure to the patients.
doi:10.1186/1471-2385-7-4
PMCID: PMC2140263  PMID: 17953754
3.  Comparison of 18F SPECT with PET in myocardial imaging: A realistic thorax-cardiac phantom study 
Background
Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with fluorine-18 (18F) Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and flow tracer such as Rubidium-82 (82Rb) is an established method for evaluating an ischemic but viable myocardium. However, the high cost of PET imaging restricts its wider clinical use. Therefore, less expensive 18F FDG single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging has been considered as an alternative to 18F FDG PET imaging. The purpose of the work is to compare SPECT with PET in myocardial perfusion/viability imaging.
Methods
A nonuniform RH-2 thorax-heart phantom was used in the SPECT and PET acquisitions. Three inserts, 3 cm, 2 cm and 1 cm in diameter, were placed in the left ventricular (LV) wall to simulate infarcts. The phantom acquisition was performed sequentially with 7.4 MBq of 18F and 22.2 MBq of Technetium-99m (99mTc) in the SPECT study and with 7.4 MBq of 18F and 370 MBq of 82Rb in the PET study. SPECT and PET data were processed using standard reconstruction software provided by vendors. Circumferential profiles of the short-axis slices, the contrast and viability of the inserts were used to evaluate the SPECT and PET images.
Results
The contrast for 3 cm, 2 cm and 1 cm inserts were for 18F PET data, 1.0 ± 0.01, 0.67 ± 0.02 and 0.25 ± 0.01, respectively. For 82Rb PET data, the corresponding contrast values were 0.61 ± 0.02, 0.37 ± 0.02 and 0.19 ± 0.01, respectively. For 18F SPECT the contrast values were, 0.31 ± 0.03 and 0.20 ± 0.05 for 3 cm and 2 cm inserts, respectively. For 99mTc SPECT the contrast values were, 0.63 ± 0.04 and 0.24 ± 0.05 for 3 cm and 2 cm inserts respectively. In SPECT, the 1 cm insert was not detectable. In the SPECT study, all three inserts were falsely diagnosed as "viable", while in the PET study, only the 1 cm insert was diagnosed falsely "viable".
Conclusion
For smaller defects the 99mTc/18F SPECT imaging cannot entirely replace the more expensive 82Rb/18F PET for myocardial perfusion/viability imaging, due to poorer image spatial resolution and poorer defect contrast.
doi:10.1186/1471-2385-6-5
PMCID: PMC1634842  PMID: 17076890

Results 1-3 (3)