Comparison between quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging and [15O]H2O positron emission tomography

Abstract

Purpose To compare cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with [ 15 O]H 2 O positron emission tomography (PET) for quantification of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods Fifty-nine patients with stable CAD underwent CMR and [ 15 O]H 2 O PET. The CMR imaging protocol included late gadolinium enhancement to rule out presence of scar tissue and perfusion imaging using a dual sequence, single bolus technique. Absolute MBF was determined for the three main vascular territories at rest and during vasodilator stress. Results CMR measurements of regional stress MBF and MFR showed only moderate correlation to those obtained using PET (r = 0.39; P < 0.001 for stress MBF and r = 0.36; P < 0.001 for MFR). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a significant bias of 0.2 ± 1.0 mL/ min/g for stress MBF and − 0.5 ± 1.2 for MFR. CMR-derived stress MBF and MFR demonstrated area under the curves of respectively 0.72 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.79) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.83) and had optimal cutoff values of 2.35 mL/min/g and 2.25 for detecting abnormal myocardial perfusion, defined as [ 15 O]H 2 O PET-derived stress MBF ≤ 2.3 mL/min/g and MFR ≤ 2.5. Using these cutoff values, CMR and PET were concordant in 137 (77%) vascular territories for stress MBF and 135 (80%) vascular territories for MFR. Conclusion CMR measurements of stress MBF and MFR showed modest agreement to those obtained with [ 15 O]H 2 O PET. Nevertheless, stress MBF and MFR were concordant between CMR and [ 15 O]H 2 O PET in 77% and 80% of vascular territories, respectively.

A Multimodality Myocardial Perfusion Phantom: Initial Quantitative Imaging Results

“…Validation and harmonization of measurements is essential before these it can optimize revascularization decision making [ 9 ]. Next to PET, absolute MPI is also emerging with other imaging modalities, such as SPECT [ 1 , 10 ], computed tomography (CT) [ 11 ], magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [ 12 , 13 ], and ultrasound [ 14 , 15 ]. Due to this diversity in the clinical setting, it is warranted to investigate perfusion measurement (in)accuracy in a controlled environment preceding a validated standard for quantitative, multimodal MPI.…”

A free time point model for dynamic contrast enhanced exploration

“…However, for DCE users, there is a latent necessity for DCE users for new and trustable insights in terms of physiopathological interpretation [19][20][21]. Several studies have proposed techniques to compare the relevance of PK models with respect to the DCE data [22][23][24][25][26].…”