We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
SPECT myocardial blood flow quantitation toward clinical use: a comparative study with (13)N-Ammonia PET myocardial blood flow quantitation.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantitation of (99m)Tc-Sestamibi (MIBI) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) compared with (13)N-Ammonia (NH3) position emission tomography (PET) on the same cohorts.
BACKGROUND: Recent advances of SPECT technologies have been applied to develop MBF quantitation as a promising tool to diagnose coronary artery disease (CAD) for areas where PET MBF quantitation is not available. However, whether the SPECT approach can achieve the same level of accuracy as the PET approach for clinical use still needs further investigations.
METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers (HVT) and 16 clinical patients with CAD received both MIBI SPECT and NH3 PET flow scans. Dynamic SPECT images acquired with high temporary resolution were fully corrected for physical factors and processed to quantify K1 using the standard compartmental modeling. Human MIBI tracer extraction fraction (EF) was determined by comparing MIBI K1 and NH3 flow on the HVT group and then used to convert flow values from K1 for all subjects. MIBI and NH3 flow values were systematically compared to validate the SPECT approach.
RESULTS: The human MIBI EF was determined as [1.0-0.816*exp(-0.267/MBF)]. Global and regional MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) of MIBI SPECT and NH3 PET were highly correlated for all subjects (global R(2): MBF = 0.92, MFR = 0.78; regional R(2): MBF ≥ 0.88, MFR ≥ 0.71). No significant differences for rest flow, stress flow, and MFR between these two approaches were observed (All p ≥ 0.088). Bland-Altman plots overall revealed small bias between MIBI SPECT and NH3 PET (global: ΔMBF = -0.03Lml/min/g, ΔMFR = 0.07; regional: ΔMBF = -0.07 - 0.06 , ΔMFR = -0.02 - 0.22).
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitation with SPECT technologies can be accurate to measure myocardial blood flow as PET quantitation while comprehensive imaging factors of SPECT to derive the variability between these two approaches were fully addressed and corrected.
BACKGROUND: Recent advances of SPECT technologies have been applied to develop MBF quantitation as a promising tool to diagnose coronary artery disease (CAD) for areas where PET MBF quantitation is not available. However, whether the SPECT approach can achieve the same level of accuracy as the PET approach for clinical use still needs further investigations.
METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers (HVT) and 16 clinical patients with CAD received both MIBI SPECT and NH3 PET flow scans. Dynamic SPECT images acquired with high temporary resolution were fully corrected for physical factors and processed to quantify K1 using the standard compartmental modeling. Human MIBI tracer extraction fraction (EF) was determined by comparing MIBI K1 and NH3 flow on the HVT group and then used to convert flow values from K1 for all subjects. MIBI and NH3 flow values were systematically compared to validate the SPECT approach.
RESULTS: The human MIBI EF was determined as [1.0-0.816*exp(-0.267/MBF)]. Global and regional MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) of MIBI SPECT and NH3 PET were highly correlated for all subjects (global R(2): MBF = 0.92, MFR = 0.78; regional R(2): MBF ≥ 0.88, MFR ≥ 0.71). No significant differences for rest flow, stress flow, and MFR between these two approaches were observed (All p ≥ 0.088). Bland-Altman plots overall revealed small bias between MIBI SPECT and NH3 PET (global: ΔMBF = -0.03Lml/min/g, ΔMFR = 0.07; regional: ΔMBF = -0.07 - 0.06 , ΔMFR = -0.02 - 0.22).
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitation with SPECT technologies can be accurate to measure myocardial blood flow as PET quantitation while comprehensive imaging factors of SPECT to derive the variability between these two approaches were fully addressed and corrected.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app