Advertisement

No need for frame-wise attenuation correction in dynamic Rubidium-82 PET for myocardial blood flow quantification

  • J. D. van DijkEmail author
  • P. L. Jager
  • J. P. Ottervanger
  • C. H. Slump
  • J. A. van Dalen
Original Article
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Regadenoson-induced stress causes a repositioning of the heart, myocardial creep, in half of the patients undergoing Rubidium-82 (Rb-82) positron emission tomography (PET). As a result, misalignment of dynamic PET and computer tomography (CT) may occur, possibly affecting CT-based attenuation correction (AC) and thereby PET-based myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification. Our aim was to determine the need for frame-wise PET-CT AC to obtain reliable MBF measurements.

Methods

31 Out of 64 consecutive patients had myocardial creep during regadenoson-induced stress Rb-82 PET-CT and were included. Prior to PET image reconstruction, we applied two AC methods; single PET-CT alignment and frame-wise alignment in which PET time-frames with myocardial creep were individually co-registered with CT. The PET-CT misalignment was then quantified and MBFs for the three vascular territories and whole myocardium were calculated and compared between both methods.

Results

The magnitude of misalignment due to myocardial creep was 13.8 ± 4.5 mm in caudal-cranial direction, 1.8 ± 2.1 mm in medial-lateral and 2.5 ± 1.8 mm in anterior-posterior direction. Frame-wise PET-CT registration did not result in different MBF measurements (P ≥ .07) and the magnitude of misalignment and MBF differences did not correlate (P ≥ .58).

Conclusion

There is no need for frame-wise AC in dynamic Rb-82 PET for MBF quantification. Single alignment seems sufficient in patients with myocardial creep.

Keywords

Myocardial blood flow attenuation correction PET-CT registration PET rubidium 

Abbreviations

AC

Attenuation correction

BMI

Body mass index

CT

Computer tomography

MPI

Myocardial perfusion imaging

MBF

Myocardial blood flow

PET

Positron emission tomography

Rb-82

Rubidium-82

SD

Standard deviation

Notes

Disclosures

None of the authors have anything to disclose.

Supplementary material

12350_2019_1654_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (396 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 395 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    DeKemp RA, Yoshinaga K, Beanlands RSB. Will 3-dimensional PET–CT enable the routine quantification of myocardial blood flow? J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:380–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sciagrà R, Passeri A, Bucerius J, Verberne HJ, Slart RHJA, Lindner O, et al. Clinical use of quantitative cardiac perfusion PET: Rationale, modalities and possible indications. Position paper of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1530–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murthy VL, Bateman TM, Beanlands RS, Berman DS, Borges-Neto S, Chareonthaitawee P, et al. Clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow using PET: Joint Position Paper of the SNMMI Cardiovascular Council and the ASNC. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018;25:269–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams K, Guo A, Renaud JM, Chow BJW, et al. Does quantification of myocardial flow reserve using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography facilitate detection of multivessel coronary artery disease? J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:670–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koenders SS, Van Dijk JD, Jager PL, Ottervanger JP, Slump CH, van Dalen JA. Impact of regadenoson-induced myocardial creep on dynamic Rubidium-82 PET myocardial blood flow quantification. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-019-01649-4.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson NP, Gould KL. Regadenoson versus dipyridamole hyperemia for cardiac PET imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:438–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klein R, Ocneanu A, Renaud JM, Ziadi MC, Beanlands RSB, DeKemp RA. Consistent tracer administration profile improves test–retest repeatability of myocardial blood flow quantification with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018;25:929–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee BC, Moody JB, Poitrasson-Rivière A, Melvin AC, Weinberg RL, Corbett JR, et al. Blood pool and tissue phase patient motion effects on 82rubidium PET myocardial blood flow quantification. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-1256-1 Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedman J, Van Train K, Maddahi J, Rozanski A, Prigent F, Bietendorf J, et al. “Upward creep” of the heart: A frequent source of false-positive reversible defects during thallium-201 stress-redistribution SPECT. J Nucl Med. 1989;30:1718–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Piccinelli M, Votaw JR, Garcia EV. Motion correction and its impact on absolute myocardial blood flow measures with PET. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2018;20:34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nekolla SG, Martinez-Möller A. Attenuation correction in cardiac PET: To raise awareness for a problem which is as old as PET/CT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:1296–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rajaram M, Tahari AK, Lee AH, Lodge MA, Tsui B, Nekolla S, et al. Cardiac PET/CT misregistration causes significant changes in estimated myocardial blood flow. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:50–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gould KL, Pan T, Loghin C, Johnson NP, Guha A, Sdringola S. Frequent diagnostic errors in cardiac PET/CT due to misregistration of CT attenuation and emission PET images: A definitive analysis of causes, consequences, and corrections. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1112–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Armstrong IS, Memmott MJ. A tale of two phases: Can the worst of scans become the best of scans with motion correction? J Nucl Cardiol. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-1256-1 Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lortie M, Beanlands RSB, Yoshinaga K, Klein R, DaSilva JN, DeKemp RA. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1765–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kitkungvan D, Johnson NP, Roby AE, Patel MB, Kirkeeide R, Gould KL. Routine clinical quantitative rest stress myocardial perfusion for managing coronary artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10:565–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/.
  18. 18.
    Memmott MJ, Tonge CM, Saint KJ, Arumugam P. Impact of pharmacological stress agent on patient motion during rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion PET/CT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018;25:1286–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dilsizian V, Bacharach SL, Beanlands RS, Bergmann SR, Delbeke D, Dorbala S, et al. ASNC imaging guidelines/SNMMI procedure standard for positron emission tomography (PET) nuclear cardiology procedures. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:1187–226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Le Meunier L, Maass-Moreno R, Carrasquillo J, Dieckmann W, Bacharach S. PET/CT imaging: Effect of respiratory motion on apparent myocardial uptake. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;13:821–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yoshinaga K, Chow BJW, Williams K, Chen L, DeKemp RA, Garrard L, et al. What is the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1029–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2019
corrected publication 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineIsala HospitalZwolleThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Medical PhysicsIsala HospitalZwolleThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of CardiologyIsala HospitalZwolleThe Netherlands
  4. 4.MIRA: Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical MedicineUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations