Comparison of global and regional myocardial blood flow quantification using dynamic solid-state detector SPECT and Tc-99 m-sestamibi or Tc-99 m-tetrofosmin in a routine clinical setting.

Wiebke Wieting, Frank M Bengel, Johanna Diekmann
{"title":"Comparison of global and regional myocardial blood flow quantification using dynamic solid-state detector SPECT and Tc-99 m-sestamibi or Tc-99 m-tetrofosmin in a routine clinical setting.","authors":"Wiebke Wieting, Frank M Bengel, Johanna Diekmann","doi":"10.1007/s10554-025-03339-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Solid-state detector single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) enables the acquisition of dynamic data for calculation of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR). Here, we report about our experiences on routine clinical use and robustness using Tc-99 m-sestamibi and Tc-99 m-tetrofosmin. 307 patients underwent dynamic list-mode myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and standard static MPI for clinical workup of coronary artery disease on a dedicated cardiac SPECT camera. After exclusion of 33 scans, 274 scans were eligible for MBF and MFR calculation using a 1-tissue-compartment model. Attenuation correction was performed for all patients using an external computed tomogram. Patients underwent stress-only scans, both stress and rest scans or rest-only scans using Tc-99 m-tetrofosmin or Tc-99 m-sestamibi. 30 patients without known cardiovascular comorbidities and without perfusion defect on static scans were compared in a sub analysis. Global stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) was significantly higher than rest MBF (2.3 vs. 1.1 ml/min/g; p < 0.001), and showed a high variability among individuals. Global myocardial flow reserve (MFR) was 2.1 (range 0.5-7.8). An analysis of 30 patients without known cardiovascular comorbidities yielded similar stress MBF measures for Tc-99 m-sestamibi and Tc-99 m-tetrofosmin (3.1 ± 1.2 vs. 2.8 ± 0.9 ml/min/g; p = 0.429). The use of attenuation correction lead to systematically lower MBF measures. Patients who underwent a one-day protocol had notably higher rest MBF (1.2 ± 0.5 vs. 1.0 ± 0.46 ml/min/g; p = 0.009) and consequently a lower MFR. Summed defect scores from standard static scans and presence of cardiovascular comorbidities negatively impacted MBF and MFR. Quantitative SPECT MBF and MFR in a clinical routine setting yields flow measures in range of expectation at an albeit wide range and is comprehensibly linked with results from standard static scan and patients history of cardiovascular diseases. Use of one-day protocols and attenuation correction systematically alters quantitative results. However, SPECT-derived MBF and MFR lack clinical reliability due to less validated reference ranges and high inter-individual variability.</p>","PeriodicalId":94227,"journal":{"name":"The international journal of cardiovascular imaging","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The international journal of cardiovascular imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-025-03339-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Solid-state detector single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) enables the acquisition of dynamic data for calculation of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR). Here, we report about our experiences on routine clinical use and robustness using Tc-99 m-sestamibi and Tc-99 m-tetrofosmin. 307 patients underwent dynamic list-mode myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and standard static MPI for clinical workup of coronary artery disease on a dedicated cardiac SPECT camera. After exclusion of 33 scans, 274 scans were eligible for MBF and MFR calculation using a 1-tissue-compartment model. Attenuation correction was performed for all patients using an external computed tomogram. Patients underwent stress-only scans, both stress and rest scans or rest-only scans using Tc-99 m-tetrofosmin or Tc-99 m-sestamibi. 30 patients without known cardiovascular comorbidities and without perfusion defect on static scans were compared in a sub analysis. Global stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) was significantly higher than rest MBF (2.3 vs. 1.1 ml/min/g; p < 0.001), and showed a high variability among individuals. Global myocardial flow reserve (MFR) was 2.1 (range 0.5-7.8). An analysis of 30 patients without known cardiovascular comorbidities yielded similar stress MBF measures for Tc-99 m-sestamibi and Tc-99 m-tetrofosmin (3.1 ± 1.2 vs. 2.8 ± 0.9 ml/min/g; p = 0.429). The use of attenuation correction lead to systematically lower MBF measures. Patients who underwent a one-day protocol had notably higher rest MBF (1.2 ± 0.5 vs. 1.0 ± 0.46 ml/min/g; p = 0.009) and consequently a lower MFR. Summed defect scores from standard static scans and presence of cardiovascular comorbidities negatively impacted MBF and MFR. Quantitative SPECT MBF and MFR in a clinical routine setting yields flow measures in range of expectation at an albeit wide range and is comprehensibly linked with results from standard static scan and patients history of cardiovascular diseases. Use of one-day protocols and attenuation correction systematically alters quantitative results. However, SPECT-derived MBF and MFR lack clinical reliability due to less validated reference ranges and high inter-individual variability.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信