Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Automated dynamic motion correction improves repeatability and reproducibility of myocardial blood flow quantification with rubidium-82 PET imaging

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology Aims and scope

Abstract

Background

Patient motion reduces the accuracy of PET myocardial blood flow (MBF) measurements. This study evaluated the effect of automatic motion correction on test-retest repeatability and inter-observer variability in a clinically relevant population.

Methods

Patients with known or suspected CAD underwent repeat rest 82Rb PET scans within minutes as part of their scheduled rest-stress perfusion study. Two trained observers evaluated the presence of heart motion in each scan. Global LV and per-vessel MBF were computed from the dynamic rest images before and after automatic motion correction. Test-retest and inter-observer variability were assessed using intra-class correlation and Bland-Altman analysis.

Results

140 pairs of test-retest scans were included, with visual motion noted in 18%. Motion correction decreased the global MBF values by 3.5% (0.80 ± 0.24 vs 0.82 ± 0.25 mL⋅min−1⋅g−1; P < 0.001) suggesting that the blood input function was underestimated in cases with patient motion. Test-retest repeatability of global MBF improved by 9.7% (0.25 vs 0.28 mL⋅min−1⋅g−1; P < 0.001) and inter-observer repeatability was improved by 7.1% (0.073 vs 0.079 mL⋅min−1⋅g−1; P = 0.012). There was a marked impact on both test-retest repeatability as well as inter-observer repeatability in the LCX territory, with improvements of 16.5% (0.30 vs 0.36 mL⋅min−1⋅g−1; P < 0.0000) and 18.4% (0.13 vs 0.16 mL⋅min−1⋅g−1; P < 0.001), respectively.

Conclusion

Automatic motion correction improved test-retest repeatability and reduced differences between observers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Abbreviations

CAD:

Coronary artery disease

MBF:

Myocardial blood flow

MPI:

Myocardial perfusion imaging

MC:

Motion correction

LAD:

Left anterior descending artery

LCX:

Left circumflex artery

RCA:

Right coronary artery

CR:

Coefficient of repeatability

COV:

Coefficient of variance

LV:

Left ventricle

References

  1. Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Hainer J, Gaber M, Di Carli G. Improved cardiac risk assessment with noninvasive measures of coronary flow reserve. Circulation 2011;124:2215‐24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams K, Guo A, Renaud JM, Chow BJW, et al. Does quantification of myocardial flow reserve using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography facilitate detection of multivessel coronary artery disease? J Nucl Cardiol 2012;19:670‐80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hunter CRRN, Klein R, Beanlands RS, deKemp RA. Patient motion effects on the quantification of regional myocardial blood flow with dynamic PET imaging. Med Phys 2016;43:1829.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee BC, Moody JB, Poitrasson-Rivière A, Melvin AC, Weinberg RL, Corbett JR, et al. Blood pool and tissue phase patient motion effects on 82rubidium PET myocardial blood flow quantification. J Nucl Cardiol 2019;26:1918‐29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rajaram M, Tahari AK, Lee AH, Lodge MA, Tsui B, Nekolla S, et al. Cardiac PET/CT misregistration causes significant changes in estimated myocardial blood flow. J Nucl Med 2013;54:50‐4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Armstrong IS, Memmott MJ, Saint KJ, Saillant A, Hayden C, Arumugam P. Assessment of motion correction in dynamic rubidium-82 cardiac PET with and without frame-by-frame adjustment of attenuation maps for calculation of myocardial blood flow. J Nucl Cardiol 2021;28:1334‐46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Byrne C, Kjaer A, Olsen NE, Forman JL, Hasbak P. Test-retest repeatability and software reproducibility of myocardial flow measurements using rest/adenosine stress Rubidium-82 PET/CT with and without motion correction in healthy young volunteers. J Nucl Cardiol 2021;28:2860‐71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Otaki Y, Lassen ML, Manabe O, Eisenberg E, Gransar H, Wang F, et al. Short-term repeatability of myocardial blood flow using 82Rb PET/CT: The effect of arterial input function position and motion correction. J Nucl Cardiol 2021;28:1718‐25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Poitrasson-Rivière A, Moody JB, Hagio T, Weinberg RL, Corbett JR, Murthy VL, et al. Reducing motion-correction-induced variability in 82rubidium myocardial blood-flow quantification. J Nucl Cardiol 2020;27:1104‐13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Efseaff M, Klein R, Ziadi MC, Beanlands RS, deKemp RA. Short-term repeatability of resting myocardial blood flow measurements using rubidium-82 PET imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2012;19:997‐1006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jubilant Radiopharma. RUBY-FIILL (rubidium Rb 82 generator) Package Insert [Internet]. Oct 2020. Available from: https://www.draximage.com/Uploads/image/1697imguf_50000001261_RUBYUSA_web.pdf (accessed 27 July 2022).

  12. Lortie M, Beanlands RSB, Yoshinaga K, Klein R, Dasilva JN, DeKemp RA. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1765‐74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Morgan WA. A test for the significance of the difference between the two variances in a sample from a normal bivariate population. Biometrika 1939;31:13‐9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee BC, Moody JB, Poitrasson-Rivière A, Melvin AC, Weinberg RL, Corbett JR, et al. Automated dynamic motion correction using normalized gradient fields for 82rubidium PET myocardial blood flow quantification. J Nucl Cardiol 2020;27:1982‐98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vleeming EJ, Lazarenko SV, van der Zant FM, Pan XB, Declerck JM, Wondergem M, et al. Cardiac displacement during 13N-ammonia myocardial perfusion PET/CT: comparison between adenosine- and regadenoson-induced stress. J Nucl Med Technol 2018;46:114‐22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kitkungvan D, Johnson NP, Roby AE, Patel MB, Kirkeeide R, Gould KL. Routine clinical quantitative rest stress myocardial perfusion for managing coronary artery disease: clinical relevance of test-retest variability. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;10:565‐77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Efseaff M, Klein R, Ziadi M, Beanlands R, DeKemp R. Short-term repeatability of resting myocardial blood flow measurements using rubidium-82 PET imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2012;19:997‐1006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Manabe O, Yoshinaga K, Katoh C, Naya M, deKemp RA, Tamaki N. Repeatability of rest and hyperemic myocardial blood flow measurements with 82Rb dynamic PET. J Nucl Med 2009;50:68‐71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. El Fakhri G, Kardan A, Sitek A, Dorbala S, Abi-Hatem N, Lahoud Y, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of quantitative myocardial blood flow assessment with (82)Rb PET: comparison with (13)N-ammonia PET. J Nucl Med 2009;50:1062‐71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author contributions

JC was responsible for the conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, and writing of this article. NM was responsible for data curation as well as review and editing of the manuscript. RD contributed to investigation, conceptualization, as well as writing and editing of the manuscript. RB was responsible for the supervision of the investigation as well as reviewing and editing of the manuscript.

Disclosures

Robert deKemp is consultant for- and receives unrestricted grant funding and royalties from Rubidium-82 generator technologies licensed to Jubilant Radiopharma. Rob Beanlands is consultant for- and has received grant funding from GE Healthcare, Lantheus Medical Imaging, and Jubilant Radiopharma. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest or disclosures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert A. deKemp PhD.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The authors of this article have provided a PowerPoint file, available for download at SpringerLink, which summarizes the contents of the paper and is free for re-use at meetings and presentations. Search for the article DOI on SpringerLink.com.

The authors have also provided an audio summary of the article, which is available to download as ESM, or to listen to via the JNC/ASNC Podcast.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Grant# FRN 133673.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PPTX 504 kb)

Supplementary file2 (MP3 2166 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choueiry, J., Mistry, N.P., Beanlands, R.S.B. et al. Automated dynamic motion correction improves repeatability and reproducibility of myocardial blood flow quantification with rubidium-82 PET imaging. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 30, 1133–1146 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-022-03134-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-022-03134-x

Keywords

Navigation