UNSTRUCTURED Background: PET scanners using silicon photomultipliers with digital readout (SiPM PET) have an improved temporal and spatial resolution compared to PET scanners using conventional photomultiplier tubes (PMT PET). However, the effect on image quality and visibility of perfusion defects in myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is unknown. Our aim was to determine the value of a SiPM PET scanner in MPI. Methods: We prospectively included 30 patients who underwent rest and regadenoson-induced stress Rubidium-82 (Rb-82) MPI on the D690 PMT PET (GE Healthcare) and within three weeks on the Vereos SiPM PET (Philips Healthcare). Two expert readers scored the image quality and assessed the existence of possible defects. In addition, interpreter’s confidence, myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) values were compared. Results: Image quality improved (p=0.03) using the Vereos as compared to the D690. Image quality of the Vereos and the D690 was graded fair in 20% and 10%, good in 60% and 50%, and excellent in 20% and 40%, respectively. Defect interpretation and interpreter’s confidence did not differ between the D690 and the Vereos (p>0.50). There were no significant differences in rest MBF (p≥0.29), stress MBF (p≥0.11) and MFR (p≥0.51). Conclusion: SiPM PET provides an improved image quality in comparison to PMT PET. Defect interpretation, interpreter’s confidence and absolute blood flow measurements were comparable between both systems. SiPM PET is therefore a reliable technique for MPI using Rb-82.
Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background and purpose Myocardial blood flow (MBF) measurements using PET are increasingly used to guide the management of patients with (suspected) coronary artery disease (CAD). Day-to-day variability of these measurements is poor with a 21% standard deviation or 40% 95%-confidence interval [Reference: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging, 2017;10(5):565]. This limits clinical applicability in diagnosis, risk stratification and follow-up as these all depend on comparison of flow values with fixed cut-off values. We expect that reproducibility can be improved by combining flow measurements with the variation of flow values within the myocardium. As entropy is a measure of variability of the associated distribution, we compared the reproducibility of an entropy-based flow parameter with that of conventional myocardial flow reserve (MFR) measurements. Methods We performed a study using intra-individual comparison in 24 patients who underwent rest and regadenoson-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging using Rubidium-82 on two different PET systems (PET1: Discovery 690, GE Healthcare, and PET2: Vereos, Philips Healthcare) within 3 weeks. MBF for both rest and stress was calculated using Lortie’s one-tissue compartment model (Corridor4DM, INVIA). MFR (ratio of MBF stress/rest) was determined for the myocardial as a whole (MFRglobal), for the three vascular territories: LAD, LCX and RCA (MFRregional) and for the 17 segments. Next, we calculated Shannon’s entropy to measure the variation of the 17 MFR segmental values. We multiplied Shannon’s entropy by the mean of the MFR segmental values resulting in an entropy-based MFR (MFRentropy). For each patient MFRglobal, MFRregional and MRFentropy were compared between both PET systems. For each of the three parameters the test-retest precision was calculated as the SD of the relative difference between measurements. Results The mean difference in MFR measurements between both cameras did not differ from zero (p > 0.05). Mean values for PET1 were MFRglobal = 2.4, MFRregional = 2.4 (LAD), 2.4 (LCX) and 2.5 (RCA), and MFRentropy = 2.4. For PET2 we found MFRglobal = 2.5, MFRregional = 2.5 (LAD), 2.4 (LCX) and 2.6 (RCA), and MFRentropy = 2.5. Test-retest precision was lower for MFRentropy with 11% compared to that of MFRglobal (21%), MFRregional LAD (22%), MFRregional LCX (23%) and MFRregional RCA (24%) (p < 0.01). Conclusion The reproducibility of myocardial flow reserve measurements using Rubidium-82 PET improved by a factor of 2 when an entropy-based flow parameter instead of global or regional MFR parameters is used. This entropy-based flow-parameter may be used to better discriminate ischemia from non-ischemia and may therefore improve CAD management.
Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction The combination of myocardial blood flow (MBF) measurements using Rubidium-82 (Rb-82) PET and visual assessment of the PET images is increasingly used due to its high diagnostic and prognostic value. Typically, flow measurements are calculated and used for the myocardium as a whole (global). However, small regional flow deficits may go unnoticed when only looking at global flow values. Purpose To compare the diagnostic value of regional and global myocardial flow measurements using Rb-82 PET in the detection of obstructive CAD. Methods We retrospectively included 1034 patients with no history of coronary artery disease (CAD) referred for rest and regadenoson-induced stress Rb-82 PET/CT. MBFs were calculated using Lortie’s one-tissue compartment model. Myocardial flow reserve (MFR) was calculated as the ratio of MBF during stress and rest. Regional flow was determined per vessel and per segment. Vessel MFR was defined as the lowest flow reserve of LAD, LCX and RCA territories and segmental MFR as the lowest flow reserve in all 17 segments. Follow-up data were obtained from medical records. Patients were classified to have obstructive CAD if follow-up included a positive invasive coronary angiography (ICA), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or all cause death. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were constructed to compare the diagnostic value of global and regional flow values. Results Follow-up was obtained in all 1034 patients and the median follow-up time was 2.1 years. Myocardial flow reserve values were significantly lower (p < 0.001) in the 128 patients classified with obstructive CAD than in the 906 patients without obstructive CAD: global MFR (median 1.9 [interquartile range 1.6-2.4] vs. 2.5 [2.1-2.9]); vessel MFR (1.6 [1.3-2.1] vs. 2.3 [1.9-2.6]); Segmental MFR (1.3 [0.9-1.7] vs. 1.9 [1.6-2.2]). The area under the curve of vessel MFR (0.79 ± 0.02) and segmental MFR (0.81 ± 0.02) were similar but significantly (p < 0.001) larger than the area of global MFR (0.75 ± 0.03), as shown in the Figure. Conclusion The diagnostic value improved with the use of regional MFR instead of global MFR measurements in the detection of obstructive CAD. Therefore, it seems that visual assessment of PET images can best be combined with regional flow measurements either on a per vessel or a per segment basis in Rubidium-82 PET myocardial perfusion imaging.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.