82Rb and [15O]H2O myocardial perfusion PET imaging: a prospective head to head comparison

6Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: 82Rb PET and [15O]H2O PET are both validated tracers for myocardical perfusion imaging but have not previously been compared clinically. During our site’s transition from 82Rb to [15O]H2O 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 82Rb and [15O]H2O 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 [15O]H2O 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: [15O]H2O 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 82Rb to [15O]H2O PET, it is important to take into account the higher frequency of patients with regional ischemia detected by [15O]H2O PET. Graphical Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Krakauer, M., Ismail, A., Talleruphuus, U., Henriksen, A. C., Lonsdale, M. N., Rasmussen, I. L., … Marner, L. (2023). 82Rb and [15O]H2O myocardial perfusion PET imaging: a prospective head to head comparison. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 30(6), 2790–2802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-023-03372-7

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free