Influence of patient motion on quantitative accuracy in cardiac
CAD
Myocardial blood flow
PET
image interpretation
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:
08 2022
08 2022
Historique:
received:
11
11
2020
accepted:
18
01
2021
pubmed:
4
3
2021
medline:
5
8
2022
entrez:
3
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patient motion is a common problem during cardiac PET. The purpose of the present study was to investigate to what extent motions influence the quantitative accuracy of cardiac Frequency and magnitude of motion was assessed visually using data from 50 clinical Patient motion was detected in 68% of clinical cases by visual inspection. All observed motions were small with amplitudes less than half the LV wall thickness. A clear pattern of motion influence was seen in the simulations with a decrease of myocardial blood flow (MBF) in the region of myocardium to where the motion was directed. The perfusable tissue fraction (PTF) trended in the opposite direction. Global absolute average deviation of MBF was 3.1% ± 1.8% and 7.3% ± 6.3% for motions with maximum amplitudes of 5 and 20 mm, respectively. Automated motion detection showed a sensitivity of 90% for simulated motions ≥ 10 mm but struggled with the smaller (≤ 5 mm) simulated (sensitivity 45%) and clinical motions (accuracy 48%). Patient motion can impair the quantitative accuracy of MBF. However, at typically occurring levels of patient motion, effects are similar to or only slightly larger than inter-observer variability, and downstream clinical effects are likely negligible.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patient motion is a common problem during cardiac PET. The purpose of the present study was to investigate to what extent motions influence the quantitative accuracy of cardiac
METHOD
Frequency and magnitude of motion was assessed visually using data from 50 clinical
RESULTS
Patient motion was detected in 68% of clinical cases by visual inspection. All observed motions were small with amplitudes less than half the LV wall thickness. A clear pattern of motion influence was seen in the simulations with a decrease of myocardial blood flow (MBF) in the region of myocardium to where the motion was directed. The perfusable tissue fraction (PTF) trended in the opposite direction. Global absolute average deviation of MBF was 3.1% ± 1.8% and 7.3% ± 6.3% for motions with maximum amplitudes of 5 and 20 mm, respectively. Automated motion detection showed a sensitivity of 90% for simulated motions ≥ 10 mm but struggled with the smaller (≤ 5 mm) simulated (sensitivity 45%) and clinical motions (accuracy 48%).
CONCLUSION
Patient motion can impair the quantitative accuracy of MBF. However, at typically occurring levels of patient motion, effects are similar to or only slightly larger than inter-observer variability, and downstream clinical effects are likely negligible.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33655448
doi: 10.1007/s12350-021-02550-9
pii: 10.1007/s12350-021-02550-9
pmc: PMC9345798
doi:
Substances chimiques
Oxygen Radioisotopes
0
Water
059QF0KO0R
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1742-1752Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Nucl Cardiol. 2018 Aug;25(4):1286-1295
pubmed: 28054183
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Oct 1;21(10):1105-1113
pubmed: 32959061
J Nucl Cardiol. 2022 Jun;29(3):1119-1128
pubmed: 33146863
J Nucl Cardiol. 2019 Jun;26(3):719-728
pubmed: 30788758
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Oct 7;64(14):1464-75
pubmed: 25277618
J Nucl Cardiol. 2019 Dec;26(6):1918-1929
pubmed: 29572594
Med Phys. 2016 Apr;43(4):1829
pubmed: 27036580
J Nucl Med. 2005 Jul;46(7):1219-24
pubmed: 16000292
J Nucl Med. 1991 Nov;32(11):2169-75
pubmed: 1941156
JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Oct 1;2(10):1100-1107
pubmed: 28813561
Eur J Nucl Med. 1998 Jul;25(7):751-9
pubmed: 9662598
Circulation. 2011 Nov 15;124(20):2215-24
pubmed: 22007073
Circulation. 2010 Aug 10;122(6):603-13
pubmed: 20660808
J Nucl Med. 2011 May;52(5):745-9
pubmed: 21498530
Mol Imaging Biol. 2005 Jul-Aug;7(4):273-85
pubmed: 16080023
J Nucl Cardiol. 2012 Jun;19(3):524-33
pubmed: 22314554
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 May;38(5):930-9
pubmed: 21271246
J Nucl Med Technol. 2018 Jun;46(2):114-122
pubmed: 29273695
J Nucl Med. 2003 Jul;44(7):1176-83
pubmed: 12843234
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Jul 1;21(7):777-786
pubmed: 31620792