Bober Robert M, Milani Richard V, Abelhad Nadia I, Velasco-Gonzalez Cruz, Stewart Merrill H, Morin Daniel P
John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, 1514 Jefferson Highway, New Orleans, LA 70121-2483, USA; Ochsner Clinical School, Queensland University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Center for Healthcare Innovation, Sutter Health, San Francisco, CA, USA.
J Nucl Cardiol. 2024 Nov;41:102059. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclcard.2024.102059. Epub 2024 Oct 18.
On legacy 2D positron emission tomography (PET) systems utilizing a 50 mL/min Rb-82 profile, test-retest precision of quantitative perfusion is ∼10%. It is unclear whether Rb-82 infusion rate significantly impacts quantitative perfusion and/or image quality on modern analog 3D PET-CT systems. We aimed to determine whether the Rb-82 infusion profile significantly impacts test-retest precision of quantitative perfusion, perfusion metrics, and/or image quality on a modern analog 3D PET-CT scanner.
Ninety-eight volunteers from 3 distinct groups: healthy volunteers (Normals), patients with risk factors, and/or coronary disease (Clinicals) and patients with prior transmural myocardial infarctions (Infarcts), underwent cardiac stress testing on an analog 3D PET-CT. Participants received 3 consecutive resting scans and 2 consecutive stress scans, minutes apart, with two randomly assigned Rb-82 infusion profiles: 50 mL/min (fast [F]) and 20 mL/min (slow [S]). Perfusion metrics (resting (rMBF) and stress myocardial blood flow (sMBF)) were calculated using HeartSee software. Coefficients of variance (COV), repeatability (RC), MBF, and image quality metrics were compared.
rMBF correlated well between F and S profiles, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranging .91-.93. sMBF was highly correlated between F and S profiles (ICC = .97). Fast and slow profiles were associated with similar same-day test-retest precision (COV 11.5% vs 11.3% (P = .77); RC 21.5% vs 22.6%, for F-F vs S-S). There were no clinically significant differences in MBF values between F and S profiles. Image quality metrics were similar between the 2 profiles.
There are no clinically significant differences in precision, perfusion metrics, or image quality between Rb-82 fast and slow infusions using a contemporary analog 3D PET-CT.
在使用50毫升/分钟铷-82注射方案的传统二维正电子发射断层扫描（PET）系统中，定量灌注的重测精度约为10%。尚不清楚铷-82注射速率是否会对现代模拟三维PET-CT系统的定量灌注和/或图像质量产生显著影响。我们旨在确定铷-82注射方案是否会对现代模拟三维PET-CT扫描仪上定量灌注的重测精度、灌注指标和/或图像质量产生显著影响。
来自3个不同组别的98名志愿者：健康志愿者（正常人）、有风险因素和/或冠心病患者（临床患者）以及有既往透壁心肌梗死患者（梗死患者），在模拟三维PET-CT上进行心脏负荷试验。参与者接受3次连续的静息扫描和2次连续的负荷扫描，每次扫描间隔数分钟，采用两种随机分配的铷-82注射方案：50毫升/分钟（快速[F]）和20毫升/分钟（慢速[S]）。使用HeartSee软件计算灌注指标（静息心肌血流量[rMBF]和负荷心肌血流量[sMBF]）。比较变异系数（COV）、重复性（RC）、MBF和图像质量指标。
F和S方案之间的rMBF相关性良好，组内相关系数（ICC）范围为0.91 - 0.93。F和S方案之间的sMBF高度相关（ICC = 0.97）。快速和慢速方案与相似的同日重测精度相关（F-F与S-S的COV分别为11.5%和11.3%（P = 0.77）；RC分别为21.5%和22.
