Effect of Temporal Sampling Protocols on Myocardial Blood Flow Measurements Using Rubidium-82 PET

Overview

Journal J Nucl Cardiol

Specialty Cardiology & Vascular Diseases

Date 2021 Mar 3

PMID 33655444

Citations 3

Authors

S S Koenders

J D van Dijk

P L Jager

M Mouden

A G Tegelaar

C H Slump

J A van Dalen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: A variety of temporal sampling protocols is used worldwide to measure myocardial blood flow (MBF). Both the length and number of time frames in these protocols may alter MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) measurements. We aimed to assess the effect of different clinically used temporal sampling protocols on MBF and MFR quantification in Rubidium-82 (Rb-82) PET imaging.

Methods: We retrospectively included 20 patients referred for myocardial perfusion imaging using Rb-82 PET. A literature search was performed to identify appropriate sampling protocols. PET data were reconstructed using 14 selected temporal sampling protocols with time frames of 5-10 seconds in the first-pass phase and 30-120 seconds in the tissue phase. Rest and stress MBF and MFR were calculated for all protocols and compared to the reference protocol with 26 time frames.

Results: MBF measurements differed (P ≤ 0.003) in six (43%) protocols in comparison to the reference protocol, with mean absolute relative differences up to 16% (range 5%-31%). Statistically significant differences were most frequently found for protocols with tissue phase time frames < 90 seconds. MFR did not differ (P ≥ 0.11) for any of the protocols.

Conclusions: Various temporal sampling protocols result in different MBF values using Rb-82 PET. MFR measurements were more robust to different temporal sampling protocols.

Citing Articles

Patient-tailored risk assessment of obstructive coronary artery disease using Rubidium-82 PET-based myocardial flow quantification with visual interpretation.

Koenders S, van Dalen J, Jager P, Mouden M, Slump C, van Dijk J J Nucl Cardiol. 2023; 30(5):1890-1896.

PMID: 37076608 PMC: 10558363. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-023-03237-z.

Machine learning based model to diagnose obstructive coronary artery disease using calcium scoring, PET imaging, and clinical data.

van Dalen J, Koenders S, Metselaar R, Vendel B, Slotman D, Mouden M J Nucl Cardiol. 2023; 30(4):1504-1513.

PMID: 36622542 DOI: 10.1007/s12350-022-03166-3.

Diagnostic value of regional myocardial flow reserve measurements using Rubidium-82 PET : Disclosures none.

Koenders S, van Dalen J, Jager P, Mouden M, Slump C, van Dijk J Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2022; 38(12):2743-2751.

PMID: 36445671 PMC: 9708774. DOI: 10.1007/s10554-022-02644-6.

References

Armstrong I, Tonge C, Arumugam P . Impact of point spread function modeling and time-of-flight on myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve measurements for rubidium-82 cardiac PET. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014; 21(3):467-74. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-014-9858-8. View

Hajjiri M, Leavitt M, Zheng H, Spooner A, Fischman A, Gewirtz H . Comparison of positron emission tomography measurement of adenosine-stimulated absolute myocardial blood flow versus relative myocardial tracer content for physiological assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity and location. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009; 2(6):751-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2009.04.004. View

Sciagra R, Passeri A, Bucerius J, Verberne H, Slart R, Lindner O . Clinical use of quantitative cardiac perfusion PET: rationale, modalities and possible indications. Position paper of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016; 43(8):1530-45. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-016-3317-5. View

Ziadi M, deKemp R, Williams K, Guo A, Chow B, Renaud J . Impaired myocardial flow reserve on rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging predicts adverse outcomes in patients assessed for myocardial ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58(7):740-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.01.065. View

Herrero P, Markham J, Shelton M, Weinheimer C, Bergmann S . Noninvasive quantification of regional myocardial perfusion with rubidium-82 and positron emission tomography. Exploration of a mathematical model. Circulation. 1990; 82(4):1377-86. DOI: 10.1161/01.cir.82.4.1377. View

Hoff C, Sorensen J, Christensen N, Bouchelouche K, Tolbod L . Activity regimes for 82Rb cardiac PET: Effects on absolute MBF and MPI. J Nucl Cardiol. 2020; 29(2):449-460. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-020-02266-2. View

Tahari A, Lee A, Rajaram M, Fukushima K, Lodge M, Lee B . Absolute myocardial flow quantification with (82)Rb PET/CT: comparison of different software packages and methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013; 41(1):126-35. PMC: 3849220. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-013-2537-1. View

Yoshinaga K, Klein R, Tamaki N . Generator-produced rubidium-82 positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging-From basic aspects to clinical applications. J Cardiol. 2010; 55(2):163-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2010.01.001. View

Lortie M, Beanlands R, Yoshinaga K, Klein R, DaSilva J, deKemp R . Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007; 34(11):1765-74. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-007-0478-2. View

10.

Farhad H, Dunet V, Bachelard K, Allenbach G, Kaufmann P, Prior J . Added prognostic value of myocardial blood flow quantitation in rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013; 14(12):1203-10. DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jet068. View

11.

Murthy V, Naya M, Foster C, Hainer J, Gaber M, Di Carli G . Improved cardiac risk assessment with noninvasive measures of coronary flow reserve. Circulation. 2011; 124(20):2215-24. PMC: 3495106. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.050427. View

12.

van Dijk J, Jager P, A C van Osch J, Khodaverdi M, van Dalen J . Comparison of maximal Rubidium-82 activities for myocardial blood flow quantification between digital and conventional PET systems. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018; 26(4):1286-1291. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-017-1156-9. View

13.

Johnson N, Gould K . Regadenoson versus dipyridamole hyperemia for cardiac PET imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015; 8(4):438-447. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.11.016. View

14.

Moody J, Murthy V, Lee B, Corbett J, Ficaro E . Variance Estimation for Myocardial Blood Flow by Dynamic PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2015; 34(11):2343-53. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2015.2432678. View

15.

Prior J, Allenbach G, Valenta I, Kosinski M, Burger C, Verdun F . Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb positron emission tomography: clinical validation with 15O-water. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012; 39(6):1037-47. PMC: 3342496. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-012-2082-3. View

16.

Klein R, Beanlands R, deKemp R . Quantification of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve: Technical aspects. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010; 17(4):555-70. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-010-9256-9. View

17.

Murthy V, Bateman T, Beanlands R, Berman D, Borges-Neto S, Chareonthaitawee P . Clinical Quantification of Myocardial Blood Flow Using PET: Joint Position Paper of the SNMMI Cardiovascular Council and the ASNC. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017; 25(1):269-297. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-017-1110-x. View

18.

Renaud J, Yip K, Guimond J, Trottier M, Pibarot P, Turcotte E . Characterization of 3-Dimensional PET Systems for Accurate Quantification of Myocardial Blood Flow. J Nucl Med. 2016; 58(1):103-109. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.116.174565. View

19.

Herrero P, Markham J, Shelton M, Bergmann S . Implementation and evaluation of a two-compartment model for quantification of myocardial perfusion with rubidium-82 and positron emission tomography. Circ Res. 1992; 70(3):496-507. DOI: 10.1161/01.res.70.3.496. View

20.

Yoshida K, Mullani N, Gould K . Coronary flow and flow reserve by PET simplified for clinical applications using rubidium-82 or nitrogen-13-ammonia. J Nucl Med. 1996; 37(10):1701-12. View