Value of SiPM PET in myocardial perfusion imaging using Rubidium-82.
PET
Rb-82
SiPM PET
myocardial blood flow
myocardial perfusion imaging
Journal
Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology
ISSN: 1532-6551
Titre abrégé: J Nucl Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9423534
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
27
01
2020
accepted:
03
04
2020
pubmed:
16
5
2020
medline:
30
4
2022
entrez:
16
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
PET scanners using silicon photomultipliers with digital readout (SiPM PET) have an improved temporal and spatial resolution compared to PET scanners using conventional photomultiplier tubes (PMT PET). However, the effect on image quality and visibility of perfusion defects in myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is unknown. Our aim was to determine the value of a SiPM PET scanner in MPI. We prospectively included 30 patients who underwent rest and regadenoson-induced stress Rubidium-82 (Rb-82) MPI on the D690 PMT PET (GE Healthcare) and within three weeks on the Vereos SiPM PET (Philips Healthcare). Two expert readers scored the image quality and assessed the existence of possible defects. In addition, interpreter's confidence, myocardial blood flow (MBF), and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) values were compared. Image quality improved (P = 0.03) using the Vereos as compared to the D690. Image quality of the Vereos and the D690 was graded fair in 20% and 10%, good in 60% and 50%, and excellent in 20% and 40%, respectively. Defect interpretation and interpreter's confidence did not differ between the D690 and the Vereos (P > 0.50). There were no significant differences in rest MBF (P ≥ 0.29), stress MBF (P ≥ 0.11), and MFR (P ≥ 0.51). SiPM PET provides an improved image quality in comparison with PMT PET. Defect interpretation, interpreter's confidence, and absolute blood flow measurements were comparable between both systems. SiPM PET is therefore a reliable technique for MPI using Rb-82. ToetsingOnline NL63853.075.17. Registered 13 November, 2017.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
PET scanners using silicon photomultipliers with digital readout (SiPM PET) have an improved temporal and spatial resolution compared to PET scanners using conventional photomultiplier tubes (PMT PET). However, the effect on image quality and visibility of perfusion defects in myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is unknown. Our aim was to determine the value of a SiPM PET scanner in MPI.
METHODS
METHODS
We prospectively included 30 patients who underwent rest and regadenoson-induced stress Rubidium-82 (Rb-82) MPI on the D690 PMT PET (GE Healthcare) and within three weeks on the Vereos SiPM PET (Philips Healthcare). Two expert readers scored the image quality and assessed the existence of possible defects. In addition, interpreter's confidence, myocardial blood flow (MBF), and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) values were compared.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Image quality improved (P = 0.03) using the Vereos as compared to the D690. Image quality of the Vereos and the D690 was graded fair in 20% and 10%, good in 60% and 50%, and excellent in 20% and 40%, respectively. Defect interpretation and interpreter's confidence did not differ between the D690 and the Vereos (P > 0.50). There were no significant differences in rest MBF (P ≥ 0.29), stress MBF (P ≥ 0.11), and MFR (P ≥ 0.51).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
SiPM PET provides an improved image quality in comparison with PMT PET. Defect interpretation, interpreter's confidence, and absolute blood flow measurements were comparable between both systems. SiPM PET is therefore a reliable technique for MPI using Rb-82.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ToetsingOnline NL63853.075.17. Registered 13 November, 2017.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32410059
doi: 10.1007/s12350-020-02141-0
pii: 10.1007/s12350-020-02141-0
pmc: PMC8873116
doi:
Substances chimiques
Rubidium Radioisotopes
0
Rubidium-82
9K730EL8KU
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
204-212Informations de copyright
© 2020. The Author(s).
Références
J Nucl Med. 2020 Jan;61(1):129-135
pubmed: 31253742
Phys Med Biol. 2012 Jun 21;57(12):3931-43
pubmed: 22643300
J Nucl Med. 2011 Mar;52(3):485-91
pubmed: 21321275
J Nucl Cardiol. 2012 Aug;19(4):670-80
pubmed: 22415819
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Oct 30;60(18):1828-37
pubmed: 23040573
J Nucl Cardiol. 2019 Aug;26(4):1286-1291
pubmed: 29340986
J Nucl Cardiol. 2019 Jun;26(3):738-745
pubmed: 30790203
J Nucl Med. 2010 Oct;51(10):1592-9
pubmed: 20847168
J Nucl Med. 2007 Jul;48(7):1112-21
pubmed: 17574974
J Nucl Med. 2019 Jul;60(7):1031-1036
pubmed: 30630944
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Aug;44(Suppl 1):4-16
pubmed: 28687866
J Nucl Med. 2004 Jun;45(6):1029-39
pubmed: 15181138
J Nucl Cardiol. 2014 Jun;21(3):467-74
pubmed: 24477406
Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2015 May-Jun;57(6):566-78
pubmed: 25721706
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jun;46(6):1383-1390
pubmed: 30631910
J Nucl Cardiol. 2018 Feb;25(1):269-297
pubmed: 29243073
J Nucl Med. 2017 Jan;58(1):103-109
pubmed: 27539843
J Nucl Med. 2015 Sep;56(9):1378-85
pubmed: 26159588
Radiology. 2010 Oct;257(1):158-66
pubmed: 20851940
J Nucl Cardiol. 2012 Oct;19(5):1060-72; quiz 1075
pubmed: 22714648
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Jul;43(8):1530-45
pubmed: 26846913
Semin Nucl Med. 2016 Jan;46(1):5-19
pubmed: 26687853
J Nucl Med. 2017 Sep;58(9):1511-1518
pubmed: 28450566
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Jan;41(1):126-35
pubmed: 23982454
J Nucl Med. 2007 Feb;48(2):188-93
pubmed: 17268013
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 Nov;34(11):1765-74
pubmed: 17619189
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 May;10(5):565-577
pubmed: 28017383
J Nucl Cardiol. 2007 May-Jun;14(3):380-97
pubmed: 17556173
J Nucl Cardiol. 2019 Jun;26(3):719-728
pubmed: 30788758