Cargando…
Value of SiPM PET in myocardial perfusion imaging using Rubidium-82
BACKGROUND: PET scanners using silicon photomultipliers with digital readout (SiPM PET) have an improved temporal and spatial resolution compared to PET scanners using conventional photomultiplier tubes (PMT PET). However, the effect on image quality and visibility of perfusion defects in myocardial...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8873116/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32410059 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-020-02141-0 |
_version_ | 1784657394445320192 |
---|---|
author | Koenders, S. S. van Dalen, J. A. Jager, P. L. Knollema, S. Timmer, J. R. Mouden, M. Slump, C. H. van Dijk, J. D. |
author_facet | Koenders, S. S. van Dalen, J. A. Jager, P. L. Knollema, S. Timmer, J. R. Mouden, M. Slump, C. H. van Dijk, J. D. |
author_sort | Koenders, S. S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: PET scanners using silicon photomultipliers with digital readout (SiPM PET) have an improved temporal and spatial resolution compared to PET scanners using conventional photomultiplier tubes (PMT PET). However, the effect on image quality and visibility of perfusion defects in myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is unknown. Our aim was to determine the value of a SiPM PET scanner in MPI. METHODS: We prospectively included 30 patients who underwent rest and regadenoson-induced stress Rubidium-82 (Rb-82) MPI on the D690 PMT PET (GE Healthcare) and within three weeks on the Vereos SiPM PET (Philips Healthcare). Two expert readers scored the image quality and assessed the existence of possible defects. In addition, interpreter’s confidence, myocardial blood flow (MBF), and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) values were compared. RESULTS: Image quality improved (P = 0.03) using the Vereos as compared to the D690. Image quality of the Vereos and the D690 was graded fair in 20% and 10%, good in 60% and 50%, and excellent in 20% and 40%, respectively. Defect interpretation and interpreter’s confidence did not differ between the D690 and the Vereos (P > 0.50). There were no significant differences in rest MBF (P ≥ 0.29), stress MBF (P ≥ 0.11), and MFR (P ≥ 0.51). CONCLUSION: SiPM PET provides an improved image quality in comparison with PMT PET. Defect interpretation, interpreter’s confidence, and absolute blood flow measurements were comparable between both systems. SiPM PET is therefore a reliable technique for MPI using Rb-82. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ToetsingOnline NL63853.075.17. Registered 13 November, 2017. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12350-020-02141-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8873116 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88731162022-03-02 Value of SiPM PET in myocardial perfusion imaging using Rubidium-82 Koenders, S. S. van Dalen, J. A. Jager, P. L. Knollema, S. Timmer, J. R. Mouden, M. Slump, C. H. van Dijk, J. D. J Nucl Cardiol Original Article BACKGROUND: PET scanners using silicon photomultipliers with digital readout (SiPM PET) have an improved temporal and spatial resolution compared to PET scanners using conventional photomultiplier tubes (PMT PET). However, the effect on image quality and visibility of perfusion defects in myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is unknown. Our aim was to determine the value of a SiPM PET scanner in MPI. METHODS: We prospectively included 30 patients who underwent rest and regadenoson-induced stress Rubidium-82 (Rb-82) MPI on the D690 PMT PET (GE Healthcare) and within three weeks on the Vereos SiPM PET (Philips Healthcare). Two expert readers scored the image quality and assessed the existence of possible defects. In addition, interpreter’s confidence, myocardial blood flow (MBF), and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) values were compared. RESULTS: Image quality improved (P = 0.03) using the Vereos as compared to the D690. Image quality of the Vereos and the D690 was graded fair in 20% and 10%, good in 60% and 50%, and excellent in 20% and 40%, respectively. Defect interpretation and interpreter’s confidence did not differ between the D690 and the Vereos (P > 0.50). There were no significant differences in rest MBF (P ≥ 0.29), stress MBF (P ≥ 0.11), and MFR (P ≥ 0.51). CONCLUSION: SiPM PET provides an improved image quality in comparison with PMT PET. Defect interpretation, interpreter’s confidence, and absolute blood flow measurements were comparable between both systems. SiPM PET is therefore a reliable technique for MPI using Rb-82. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ToetsingOnline NL63853.075.17. Registered 13 November, 2017. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12350-020-02141-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2020-05-14 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8873116/ /pubmed/32410059 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-020-02141-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Koenders, S. S. van Dalen, J. A. Jager, P. L. Knollema, S. Timmer, J. R. Mouden, M. Slump, C. H. van Dijk, J. D. Value of SiPM PET in myocardial perfusion imaging using Rubidium-82 |
title | Value of SiPM PET in myocardial perfusion imaging using Rubidium-82 |
title_full | Value of SiPM PET in myocardial perfusion imaging using Rubidium-82 |
title_fullStr | Value of SiPM PET in myocardial perfusion imaging using Rubidium-82 |
title_full_unstemmed | Value of SiPM PET in myocardial perfusion imaging using Rubidium-82 |
title_short | Value of SiPM PET in myocardial perfusion imaging using Rubidium-82 |
title_sort | value of sipm pet in myocardial perfusion imaging using rubidium-82 |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8873116/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32410059 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-020-02141-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT koendersss valueofsipmpetinmyocardialperfusionimagingusingrubidium82 AT vandalenja valueofsipmpetinmyocardialperfusionimagingusingrubidium82 AT jagerpl valueofsipmpetinmyocardialperfusionimagingusingrubidium82 AT knollemas valueofsipmpetinmyocardialperfusionimagingusingrubidium82 AT timmerjr valueofsipmpetinmyocardialperfusionimagingusingrubidium82 AT moudenm valueofsipmpetinmyocardialperfusionimagingusingrubidium82 AT slumpch valueofsipmpetinmyocardialperfusionimagingusingrubidium82 AT vandijkjd valueofsipmpetinmyocardialperfusionimagingusingrubidium82 |