Cargando…

Effects of patient movement on measurements of myocardial blood flow and viability in resting (15)O-water PET studies

BACKGROUND: Patient movement has been considered an important source of errors in cardiac PET. This study was aimed at evaluating the effects of such movement on myocardial blood flow (MBF) and perfusable tissue fraction (PTF) measurements in intravenous (15)O-water PET. METHODS: Nineteen (15)O-wate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Koshino, Kazuhiro, Watabe, Hiroshi, Enmi, Junichiro, Hirano, Yoshiyuki, Zeniya, Tsutomu, Hasegawa, Shinji, Hayashi, Takuya, Miyagawa, Shigeru, Sawa, Yoshiki, Hatazawa, Jun, Iida, Hidehiro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3358554/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22314554
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-012-9522-0
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Patient movement has been considered an important source of errors in cardiac PET. This study was aimed at evaluating the effects of such movement on myocardial blood flow (MBF) and perfusable tissue fraction (PTF) measurements in intravenous (15)O-water PET. METHODS: Nineteen (15)O-water scans were performed on ten healthy volunteers and three patients with severe cardiac dysfunction under resting conditions. Motions of subjects during scans were estimated by monitoring locations of markers on their chests using an optical motion-tracking device. Each sinogram of the dynamic emission frames was corrected for subject motion. Variation of regional MBF and PTF with and without the motion corrections was evaluated. RESULTS: In nine scans, motions during (15)O-water scan (inter-frame (IF) motion) and misalignments relative to the transmission scan (inter-scan (IS) motion) larger than the spatial resolution of the PET scanner (4.0 mm) were both detected by the optical motion-tracking device. After correction for IF motions, MBF values changed from 0.845 ± 0.366 to 0.780 ± 0.360 mL/minute/g (P < .05). In four scans with only IS motion detected, PTF values changed significantly from 0.465 ± 0.118 to 0.504 ± 0.087 g/mL (P< .05), but no significant change was found in MBF values. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that IF motion during (15)O-water scan at rest can be source of error in MBF measurement. Furthermore, estimated MBF is less sensitive than PTF values to misalignment between transmission and (15)O-water emission scans.