(82)Rb and [(15)O]H(2)O myocardial perfusion PET imaging: a prospective head to head comparison

BACKGROUND: (82)Rb PET and [(15)O]H(2)O PET are both validated tracers for myocardical perfusion imaging but have not previously been compared clinically. During our site’s transition from (82)Rb to [(15)O]H(2)O PET, we performed a head-to-head comparison in a mixed population with suspected ischemic heart disease. METHODS: A total of 37 patients referred for perfusion imaging due to suspicion of coronary stenosis were examined with both (82)Rb and [(15)O]H(2)O PET on the same day in rest and during adenosine-induced stress. The exams were rated by two blinded readers as normal, regional ischemia, globally reduced myocardial perfusion, or myocardial scarring. For [(15)O]H(2)O PET, regional ischemia was defined as two neighboring segments with average stress perfusion ≤ 2.3 mL/(min·g). Further, we evaluated a total perfusion deficit (TPD) of ≥ 10% as a more conservative marker of ischemia. RESULTS: [(15)O]H(2)O PET identified more patients with regional ischemia: 17(46%) vs 9(24%), agreement: 59% corresponding to a Cohen’s kappa of .31 [95%CI .08-.53], (P < .001). Using the more conservative TPD ≥ 10%, the agreement increased to 86% corresponding to a kappa of .62 [95%CI .33-.92], (P = .001). For the subgroup of patients with no known heart disease (n = 18), the agreement was 94%. Interrater agreement was 95% corresponding to a kappa of .89 [95%CI .74-1.00] (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical transition from (82)Rb to [(15)O]H(2)O PET, it is important to take into account the higher frequency of patients with regional ischemia detected by [(15)O]H(2)O PET. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12350-023-03372-7.