Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Fast vs slow rubidium-82 infusion profiles and test-retest precision of myocardial perfusion using contemporary 3D cardiac analog positron emission tomography-computed tomography imaging. | LitMetric
John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, 1514 Jefferson Highway, New Orleans, LA 70121-2483, USA; Ochsner Clinical School, Queensland University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Published: November 2024
AI Article Synopsis
Article Abstract
Background: On legacy 2D positron emission tomography (PET) systems utilizing a 50 mL/min Rb-82 profile, test-retest precision of quantitative perfusion is ∼10%. It is unclear whether Rb-82 infusion rate significantly impacts quantitative perfusion and/or image quality on modern analog 3D PET-CT systems. We aimed to determine whether the Rb-82 infusion profile significantly impacts test-retest precision of quantitative perfusion, perfusion metrics, and/or image quality on a modern analog 3D PET-CT scanner.
Methods: Ninety-eight volunteers from 3 distinct groups: healthy volunteers (Normals), patients with risk factors, and/or coronary disease (Clinicals) and patients with prior transmural myocardial infarctions (Infarcts), underwent cardiac stress testing on an analog 3D PET-CT. Participants received 3 consecutive resting scans and 2 consecutive stress scans, minutes apart, with two randomly assigned Rb-82 infusion profiles: 50 mL/min (fast [F]) and 20 mL/min (slow [S]). Perfusion metrics (resting (rMBF) and stress myocardial blood flow (sMBF)) were calculated using HeartSee software. Coefficients of variance (COV), repeatability (RC), MBF, and image quality metrics were compared.
Results: rMBF correlated well between F and S profiles, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranging .91-.93. sMBF was highly correlated between F and S profiles (ICC = .97). Fast and slow profiles were associated with similar same-day test-retest precision (COV 11.5% vs 11.3% (P = .77); RC 21.5% vs 22.6%, for F-F vs S-S). There were no clinically significant differences in MBF values between F and S profiles. Image quality metrics were similar between the 2 profiles.
Conclusions: There are no clinically significant differences in precision, perfusion metrics, or image quality between Rb-82 fast and slow infusions using a contemporary analog 3D PET-CT.
