DeGrado T R, Hanson M W, Turkington T G, Delong D M, Brezinski D A, Vallée J P, Hedlund L W, Zhang J, Cobb F, Sullivan M J, Coleman R E
Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
J Nucl Cardiol. 1996 Nov-Dec;3(6 Pt 1):494-507. doi: 10.1016/s1071-3581(96)90059-8.
Although several modeling strategies have been developed and validated for quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) from 13N-labeled ammonia positron emission tomographic data, a comparison of noise characteristics of the various techniques in serial studies is lacking.
Dynamic 13N-labeled ammonia positron emission tomographic imaging was performed at baseline and after pharmacologic stress in (1) single studies of four dogs with concomitant measurement of microsphere blood flow and (2) initial and follow-up studies of eight normal volunteers. Data were obtained from short-axis images for the blood pool and myocardial regions corresponding to the three arterial vascular territories. Indexes of MBF were obtained by four distinct techniques: (1) University of California, Los Angeles, two-compartment model, (2) Michigan two-compartment model, and (3) a one-compartment model with variable blood volume term. Coronary flow reserve (CFR) was measured as the ratio of stress/rest MBF. The estimated standard deviation of the measurement error for the relative change between studies of rest and stress MBF and CFR was determined for each technique. Estimates of MBF from all techniques showed good correlation with microsphere blood flow (r = 0.95 to 0.96) in canine myocardium. In human studies, similar mean estimates of MBF were found with all techniques. Techniques 1 and 3 showed the smallest interstudy variability in MBF and CFR. The estimated standard deviations for these techniques were approximately 20%, 30%, and 27% for rest MBF, stress MBF, and CFR, respectively.
Noninvasive quantification of MBF and CFR from dynamic 13N-labeled ammonia positron emission tomography is most reproducible with technique 1 or 3. The ability to account for differences in myocardial partial volume gives preference to technique 3. However, substantial interstudy variability in regional MBF remains, suggesting the importance of procedural factors or real temporal fluctuations in MBF.
尽管已经开发并验证了几种用于从(^{13}N)标记的氨正电子发射断层扫描数据定量心肌血流量(MBF)的建模策略,但在系列研究中缺乏对各种技术噪声特征的比较。
在(1)对四只狗进行的单次研究中,同时测量微球血流量,并在基线和药物应激后进行动态(^{13}N)标记的氨正电子发射断层扫描成像,以及(2)对八名正常志愿者进行的初始和随访研究。从对应于三个动脉血管区域的短轴图像中获取血池和心肌区域的数据。通过四种不同的技术获得MBF指标:(1)加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校两室模型,(2)密歇根两室模型,以及(3)具有可变血容量项的一室模型。冠状动脉血流储备(CFR)作为应激/静息MBF的比值进行测量。确定了每种技术在静息和应激MBF及CFR研究之间相对变化的测量误差估计标准差。所有技术对MBF的估计与犬心肌中的微球血流量显示出良好的相关性((r = 0.95)至(0.96))。在人体研究中,所有技术对MBF的平均估计相似。技术1和3在MBF和CFR方面显示出最小的研究间变异性。这些技术在静息MBF、应激MBF和CFR方面的估计标准差分别约为20%、30%和27%。
通过动态(^{13}N)标记的氨正电子发射断层扫描对MBF和CFR进行无创定量,技术1或3的可重复性最高。考虑心肌部分容积差异的能力使技术3更具优势。然而,区域MBF研究间仍存在较大变异性,这表明程序因素或MBF实际时间波动的重要性。