One-tissue Compartment Model for Myocardial Perfusion Quantification with N-13 Ammonia PET Provides Matching Results: A Cross-comparison Between Carimas, FlowQuant, and PMOD

Overview

Journal J Nucl Cardiol

Specialty Cardiology & Vascular Diseases

Date 2021 Aug 19

PMID 34409572

Citations 4

Authors

Sergey V Nesterov

Roberto Sciagra

Luis Eduardo Juarez Orozco

John O Prior

Leonardo Settimo

Chunlei Han

Emmanuel Deshayes

Robert A deKemp

Darja V Ryzhkova

Kilem L Gwet

Juhani M Knuuti

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To cross-compare three software packages (SPs)-Carimas, FlowQuant, and PMOD-to quantify myocardial perfusion at global, regional, and segmental levels.

Materials And Methods: Stress N-13 ammonia PET scans of 48 patients with HCM were analyzed in three centers using Carimas, FlowQuant, and PMOD. Values agreed if they had an ICC > 0.75 and a difference < 20% of the median across all observers.

Results: When using 1TCM on the global level, the agreement was good, and the maximum difference between 1TCM MBF values was 17.2% (ICC = 0.83). On the regional level, the agreement was acceptable except in the LCx region (25.5% difference, ICC = 0.74) between FlowQuant and PMOD. Carimas-1TCM agreed well with PMOD-1TCM and FlowQuant-1TCM. Values obtained with FlowQuant-1TCM had a somewhat lesser agreement with PMOD-1TCM, especially at the segmental level.

Conclusions: The global and regional MBF values (with one exception) agree well between the different software packages. There is significant variability in segmental values, mainly located in the LCx region and segments. Out of the studied tools, Carimas can be used interchangeably with both PMOD and FlowQuant for 1TCM implementation on all levels-global, regional, and segmental.

Citing Articles

Inter-Software Reproducibility of Quantitative Values of Myocardial Blood Flow and Coronary Flow Reserve Acquired by [N]NH MPI PET/CT and the Effect of Motion Correction Tools.

Mendoza-Ibanez O, Slart R, Alexanderson-Rosas E, Martinez-Lucio T, van der Zant F, Knol R Diagnostics (Basel). 2025; 15(5).

PMID: 40075861 PMC: 11898590. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics15050613.

The assessment of left ventricular volume and function in gated small animal F-FDG PET/CT imaging: a comparative study of three commercially available software tools.

Zacherl M, Simenhandra A, Lindner M, Bartenstein P, Todica A, Boening G EJNMMI Res. 2023; 13(1):75.

PMID: 37572238 PMC: 10423195. DOI: 10.1186/s13550-023-01026-w.

Measuring myocardial blood flow using dynamic myocardial perfusion SPECT: artifacts and pitfalls.

Mallet F, Poitrasson-Riviere A, Mariano-Goulart D, Agostini D, Manrique A J Nucl Cardiol. 2023; 30(5):2006-2017.

PMID: 36598748 DOI: 10.1007/s12350-022-03165-4.

Myocardial perfusion quantification with Rb-82 PET: good interobserver agreement of Carimas software on global, regional, and segmental levels.

Nesterov S, Deshayes E, Juarez-Orozco L, deKemp R, Sciagra R, Malaspina S Ann Nucl Med. 2022; 36(6):507-514.

PMID: 35192160 PMC: 9132838. DOI: 10.1007/s12149-022-01729-5.

How shall we judge a PET flow model?.

Johnson N, Gould K J Nucl Cardiol. 2021; 29(5):2551-2554.

PMID: 34561847 DOI: 10.1007/s12350-021-02805-5.

References

Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

Cecchi F, Olivotto I, Gistri R, Lorenzoni R, Chiriatti G, Camici P . Coronary microvascular dysfunction and prognosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349(11):1027-35. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa025050. View

Camici P, Chiriatti G, Lorenzoni R, Bellina R, Gistri R, Italiani G . Coronary vasodilation is impaired in both hypertrophied and nonhypertrophied myocardium of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a study with nitrogen-13 ammonia and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991; 17(4):879-86. DOI: 10.1016/0735-1097(91)90869-b. View

DeGrado T, Hanson M, Turkington T, Delong D, Brezinski D, Vallee J . Estimation of myocardial blood flow for longitudinal studies with 13N-labeled ammonia and positron emission tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 1996; 3(6 Pt 1):494-507. DOI: 10.1016/s1071-3581(96)90059-8. View

Nesterov S, Deshayes E, Sciagra R, Settimo L, Declerck J, Pan X . Quantification of myocardial blood flow in absolute terms using (82)Rb PET imaging: the RUBY-10 Study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014; 7(11):1119-1127. PMC: 4260449. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.08.003. View

Nesterov S, Knuuti J . Rb-PET MPQ: Do normal values exist?. J Nucl Cardiol. 2020; 29(2):474-475. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-020-02362-3. View

Efseaff M, Klein R, Ziadi M, Beanlands R, deKemp R . Short-term repeatability of resting myocardial blood flow measurements using rubidium-82 PET imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012; 19(5):997-1006. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-012-9600-3. View

Nesterov S, Turta O, Han C, Maki M, Lisinen I, Tuunanen H . C-11 acetate has excellent reproducibility for quantification of myocardial oxidative metabolism. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014; 16(5):500-6. DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jeu289. View

Saraste A, Kajander S, Han C, Nesterov S, Knuuti J . PET: Is myocardial flow quantification a clinical reality?. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012; 19(5):1044-59. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-012-9588-8. View

10.

Slomka P, Alexanderson E, Jacome R, Jimenez M, Romero E, Meave A . Comparison of clinical tools for measurements of regional stress and rest myocardial blood flow assessed with 13N-ammonia PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2012; 53(2):171-81. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.111.095398. View

11.

Renaud J, Mylonas I, McArdle B, Dowsley T, Yip K, Turcotte E . Clinical interpretation standards and quality assurance for the multicenter PET/CT trial rubidium-ARMI. J Nucl Med. 2013; 55(1):58-64. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.117515. View

12.

Cerqueira M, Weissman N, Dilsizian V, Jacobs A, Kaul S, Laskey W . Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2002; 105(4):539-42. DOI: 10.1161/hc0402.102975. View

13.

Kajander S, Joutsiniemi E, Saraste M, Pietila M, Ukkonen H, Saraste A . Cardiac positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging accurately detects anatomically and functionally significant coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2010; 122(6):603-13. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.915009. View

14.

Nesterov S, Han C, Maki M, Kajander S, Naum A, Helenius H . Myocardial perfusion quantitation with 15O-labelled water PET: high reproducibility of the new cardiac analysis software (Carimas). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009; 36(10):1594-602. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-009-1143-8. View

15.

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

16.

Kitkungvan D, Johnson N, Roby A, Patel M, Kirkeeide R, Gould K . Routine Clinical Quantitative Rest Stress Myocardial Perfusion for Managing Coronary Artery Disease: Clinical Relevance of Test-Retest Variability. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016; 10(5):565-577. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.09.019. View

17.

Bengel F, Higuchi T, Javadi M, Lautamaki R . Cardiac positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 54(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.02.065. View

18.

Nesterov S, Knuuti J . How accurate is the accuracy?. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018; 27(6):1967-1969. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-018-01537-3. View