Cargando…

Assessment of left and right ventricular functional parameters using dynamic dual-tracer [(13)N]NH3 and [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI

BACKGROUND: Cardiac positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) can assess various cardiovascular diseases. In this study, we intra-individually compared right (RV) and left ventricular (LV) parameters obtained from dual-tracer PET/MRI scan. METHODS: In 22 patients with coronar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rasul, Sazan, Beitzke, Dietrich, Wollenweber, Tim, Rausch, Ivo, Lassen, Martin Lyngby, Stelzmüller, Marie Elisabeth, Mitterhauser, Markus, Pichler, Verena, Beyer, Thomas, Loewe, Christian, Hacker, Marcus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9163002/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33094471
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-020-02391-y
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Cardiac positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) can assess various cardiovascular diseases. In this study, we intra-individually compared right (RV) and left ventricular (LV) parameters obtained from dual-tracer PET/MRI scan. METHODS: In 22 patients with coronary heart disease (69 ± 9 years) dynamic [(13)N]NH(3) (NH(3)) and [(18)F]FDG (FDG) PET scans were acquired. The first 2 minutes were used to calculate LV and RV first-pass ejection fraction (FPEF). Additionally, LV end-systolic (LVESV) and end-diastolic (LVEDV) volume and ejection fraction (LVEF) were calculated from the early (EP) and late-myocardial phases (LP). MRI served as a reference. RESULTS: RVFPEF and LVFPEF from FDG and NH(3) as well as RVEF and LVEF from MRI were (28 ± 11%, 32 ± 15%), (32 ± 11%, 41 ± 14%) and (42 ± 16%, 45 ± 19%), respectively. LVESV, LVEDV and LVEF from EP FDG and NH(3) in 8 and 16 gates were [71 (15 to 213 mL), 98 (16 to 241 mL), 32 ± 17%] and [50 (17 to 206 mL), 93 (13 to 219 mL), 36 ± 17%] as well as [60 (19 to 360 mL), 109 (56 to 384 mL), 41 ± 22%] and [54 (16 to 371 mL), 116 (57 to 431 mL), 46 ± 24%], respectively. Moreover, LVESV, LVEDV and LVEF acquired from LP FDG and NH(3) were (85 ± 63 mL, 138 ± 63 mL, 47 ± 19%) and (79 ± 56 mL, 137 ± 63 mL, 47 ± 20%), respectively. The LVESV, LVEDV from MRI were 93 ± 66 mL and 153 ± 71 mL, respectively. Significant correlations were observed for RVFPEF and LVFPEF between FDG and MRI (R = .51, P = .01; R = .64, P = .001), respectively. LVESV, LVEDV, and LVEF revealed moderate to strong correlations to MRI when they acquired from EP FDG and NH(3) in 16 gates (all R > .7, P = .000). Similarly, all LV parameters from LP FDG and NH(3) correlated good to strongly positive with MRI (all R > .7, and P < .001), except EDV from NH3 weakly correlated to EDV of MRI (R = .54, P < .05). Generally, Bland-Altman plots showed good agreements between PET and MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Deriving LV and RV functional values from various phases of dynamic NH(3) and FDG PET is feasible. These results could open a new perspective for further clinical applications of the PET examinations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12350-020-02391-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.