Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022
Automated dynamic motion correction improves repeatability and reproducibility of myocardial blood flow quantification with rubidium-82 PET imaging.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Choueiry Justen, Mistry Neel P, Beanlands Rob S B, deKemp Robert A
Аннотация
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.
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.