Low-dose dynamic myocardial perfusion imaging by CZT-SPECT in the identification of obstructive coronary artery disease

Myocardial Flow Reserve Measurement During CZT-SPECT Perfusion Imaging for Coronary Artery Disease Screening: Correlation With Clinical Findings and Invasive Coronary Angiography—The CFR-OR Study

“…Our MFR values are similar to other SPECT studies. Giubbini (29), but some authors reported higher values, with mean stress MBF of 3.18 ± 0.95, 2.40 ± 0.7, 3.27 ± 1.1, and 2.3 ± 0.97, respectively, for Agostini et al (8), Acampa et al (9,26), and Giubbini et al (10), whereas others observed lower values, with stress MBF of 1.11 (interquartile range, IQR: 1.00-1.26) for Nkoulou et al (7) or 0.67 (IQR, 0.55-0.81) for Zavadovsky et al (30). This discrepancy between values might result from a lack of standardization in terms of software and corrections (31).…”

“…Our findings are also consistent with the recent SPECT studies from Acampa et al the authors demonstrated a relationship between MPI findings and both hyperemic MBF and MFR obtained by CZT-SPECT, yet global MFR resulted as an independent predictor of CAD, and regional MFR was useful for the identification of obstructive CAD in the corresponding coronary artery. Their best thresholds were 2.6 for global MFR and 2.1 for regional MFR (26).…”

Dynamic ultrafast CZT imaging: Time for a paradigm change in myocardial perfusion imaging

“…9 Due to the increased spatial and energy resolution of these devices, coupled with the linear counting rate response of the detectors, and the capability to acquire data in list mode, CZT cardiac cameras may also allow dynamic acquisitions, paving the way for accurate myocardial blood flow (MBF) and flow reserve (MFR) quantification. 10,11 However, despite initial reports have shown the feasibility of dynamic CZT imaging, with the opportunity of allowing either a better differential diagnosis of patients with suspected CAD or the diagnosis of more precocious stages of the disease, [10][11][12] a comprehensive methodological characterization of the technique is still lacking. In particular, the exact duration and timing of the different acquisitions and of the entire imaging protocol is still matter of debate.…”

Cardiac PET imaging: Lost in quantification. It’s time to find the way

“…In addition to the high number of available quantification tools, it should be considered the emerging role of CZT cameras in dynamic cardiac imaging. [19][20][21] In the latest years, research focused on these new CZT-SPECT and the opportunity of performing absolute quantification of MBF and MPR even in those nuclear medicine laboratories without PET equipment. [19][20][21] The risk is to be submerged by a large amount of different values produced by different systems, different tracers, different software, without being able to give each of these a single meaning.…”

“…[19][20][21] In the latest years, research focused on these new CZT-SPECT and the opportunity of performing absolute quantification of MBF and MPR even in those nuclear medicine laboratories without PET equipment. [19][20][21] The risk is to be submerged by a large amount of different values produced by different systems, different tracers, different software, without being able to give each of these a single meaning. We would wonder if cardiac imaging really needs further quantitative tools or to optimize available resources, whereas the goal must be to obtain the best option that takes into account the different types of scanner, tracers, and protocols.…”