Nesterov Sergey V, Deshayes Emmanuel, Sciagrà Roberto, Settimo Leonardo, Declerck Jerome M, Pan Xiao-Bo, Yoshinaga Keiichiro, Katoh Chietsugu, Slomka Piotr J, Germano Guido, Han Chunlei, Aalto Ville, Alessio Adam M, Ficaro Edward P, Lee Benjamin C, Nekolla Stephan G, Gwet Kilem L, deKemp Robert A, Klein Ran, Dickson John, Case James A, Bateman Timothy, Prior John O, Knuuti Juhani M
Turku PET Centre, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
IM Sechenov Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistry RAS, St. Petersburg, Russia.
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Nov;7(11):1119-1127. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.08.003. Epub 2014 Oct 8.
The purpose of this study was to compare myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) estimates from rubidium-82 positron emission tomography ((82)Rb PET) data using 10 software packages (SPs) based on 8 tracer kinetic models.
It is unknown how MBF and MFR values from existing SPs agree for (82)Rb PET.
Rest and stress (82)Rb PET scans of 48 patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease were analyzed in 10 centers. Each center used 1 of 10 SPs to analyze global and regional MBF using the different kinetic models implemented. Values were considered to agree if they simultaneously had an intraclass correlation coefficient >0.75 and a difference <20% of the median across all programs.
The most common model evaluated was the Ottawa Heart Institute 1-tissue compartment model (OHI-1-TCM). MBF values from 7 of 8 SPs implementing this model agreed best. Values from 2 other models (alternative 1-TCM and Axially distributed) also agreed well, with occasional differences. The MBF results from other models (e.g., 2-TCM and retention) were less in agreement with values from OHI-1-TCM.
SPs using the most common kinetic model-OHI-1-TCM-provided consistent results in measuring global and regional MBF values, suggesting that they may be used interchangeably to process data acquired with a common imaging protocol.
本研究旨在比较基于8种示踪剂动力学模型,使用10种软件包(SPs)从铷-82正电子发射断层扫描((82)Rb PET)数据中估算的心肌血流量(MBF)和心肌血流储备(MFR)。
现有软件包对(82)Rb PET的MBF和MFR值的一致性尚不清楚。
在10个中心对48例疑似或已知冠状动脉疾病患者进行静息和负荷(82)Rb PET扫描分析。每个中心使用10种SPs中的1种,通过实施不同的动力学模型来分析整体和局部MBF。如果所有程序的值同时具有组内相关系数>0.75且差异<中位数的20%,则认为这些值是一致的。
评估最常见的模型是渥太华心脏研究所1组织室模型(OHI-1-TCM)。实施该模型的8种SPs中有7种的MBF值一致性最佳。其他2种模型(替代1-TCM和轴向分布)的值也一致性良好,但偶尔存在差异。其他模型(如2-TCM和滞留)的MBF结果与OHI-1-TCM的值一致性较差。
使用最常见动力学模型OHI-1-TCM的软件包在测量整体和局部MBF值时提供了一致的结果,表明它们可互换使用以处理通过通用成像协议获取的数据。