Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 704–712 | Cite as

Feasibility of myocardial perfusion imaging with half the radiation dose using ordered-subset expectation maximization with resolution recovery software

  • Nili Zafrir
  • Alejandro Solodky
  • Avi Ben-Shlomo
  • Israel Mats
  • Roman Nevzorov
  • Alexander Battler
  • Ariel Gutstein
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

This study sought to assess the feasibility of performing myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) with half the technetium activity using ordered-subset expectation maximization with resolution recovery (OSEM-RR), an iterative reconstruction software developed to improve count statistics and acquisition time.

Methods

Two hundred eighteen patients referred for MPI were randomly allocated to undergo stress-rest or rest-stress protocols with standard full-dose (FD) injections of technetium (Tc)-99m sestamibi or half-dose (HD) injections and OSEM-RR processing. Dose activities were adjusted individually by weight. The groups were compared for image quality and clinical results.

Results

The groups were similar for mean patient age, weight, and body mass index, sex distribution, pre-test probability of CAD and CAD prevalence. Mean Tc-99m activities for the low-dose and high-dose stages were as follows: FD group: 429 ± 85 MBq and 1132 ± 200 MBq; HD group: 263 ± 129 MBq and 629 ± 85 MBq (P < .0001 for both). Mean effective dose per study was 13.6 ± 1.4 mSv in the FD group and 7.7 ± 1.0 mSv in the HD group (P < .001). Over all image quality was good-to-excellent in 98% and 95% of the groups, respectively. However, when we analyzed the low-dose stage separately, image quality was slightly worse in the HD than the FD, though still within the good-to excellent range.

Conclusions

MPI with nearly half the radiation dose is feasible with good image quality.

Keywords

Radiation dose reduction SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging image quality 

Notes

Financial disclosure

No financial conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Einstein JE, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 2007;116:1290–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Ross JS, Chen J, Ting HH, et al. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 2009;361:849–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen J, Einstein AJ, Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Ross TS, et al. Cumulative exposure to ionizing radiation from diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac imaging: A population-based analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:702–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berrington de Gonzalez A, Kim K-P, Smith-Bindman R, McAreavey D. Myocardial perfusion scans. Projected population cancer risk from current levels of use in the United States. Circulation 2010;122:2403–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Einstein AG, Weiner SD, Bernheim A, Kulon M, Bokhari S, Johnson LL, et al. Multiple testing, cumulative radiation dose, and clinical indications in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging. JAMA 2010;304:2137–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaul P, Medvedev S, Hohmann SF, Douglas PS, Peterson ED, Manesh RP. Ionizing radiation exposure to patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction in the United States. Circulation 2010;12:2160–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF, Heidenreich PA, Henkin PE, Pellikka PA, et al. Appropriate use criteria for cardiac radionuclide imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:2201–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ward RP, Al-Mallah MH, Grossman GB. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology review of the ACCF/ASNC appropriateness criteria for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI). J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14:e26–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cequeira MD, Allman KV, Ficaro EP, Hansen CL, Nichols KJ, Thompson RC, et al. Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion Imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:709–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beller GA. Importance of consideration of radiation doses from cardiac imaging procedures and risks of cancer. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:1–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henzlova MJ, Cerqueira MD, Hansen CL, Taillefer R, Yao S. Imaging guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures: Stress protocols and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16. doi: 10.1007/s12350-009-9062-4.
  13. 13.
    Depuey EG, Taillefer R, Gadiraju R, Anstett F. A clinical evaluation of two resolution recovery methods for reduced scan time of gated MPI SPECT. Presented as a Late Breaking Clinical Trial Abstract, ASNC, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt, NY, 2006.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Borges-Neto S, Pagnanelli RA, Shaw LK, Honeycutt E, Shwartz SC, Adams CL, et al. Clinical results of a novel wide beam reconstruction method for shortening scan time of Tc-99m cardiac SPECT perfusion studies. J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14:555–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DePuey EG, Gadiraju R, Clark J, Thompson L, Anstett F, Shwartz S. Ordered subset expectation maximization and wide beam reconstruction “half time” gated myocardial perfusion SPECT functional imaging: A comparison to “full-time “filtered backprojection. J Nucl Cardiol 2008;15:547–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ali I, Ruddy TD, Almgrahi A, Anstett FG, Wells RG. Half time SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging with attenuation correction. J Nucl Med 2009;50:554–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zafrir N, Yuzefovich B, Mats I, Solodky A, Blazar A, Battler A. A novel method to reduce the acquisition time of myocardial perfusion SPECT scan: A comparative study. [Abstract] Presented at the ICNC 9, Barcelona, Spain, and May 2009.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ICRP, Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals (addendum 2 to ICRP publication 53). ICRP publication 80. Ann ICRP 1998;28:1-126.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holly TA, Abbott BG, Al-Mallah M, Calnon DA, Cohen MC, DiFilippo FP, et al. ASNC guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures. Single photon emission computed tomography. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17(5):941–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    “Evolution for cardiac” (White Paper). GE Healthcare, 2007. www.gehealthcare.com.
  21. 21.
    Metz CE. The geometric transfer function component for scintillation camera collimators with straight parallel holes. Phys Med Biol 1980;25(6):1059–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bruyant PP. Analytic and iterative reconstruction algorithms in SPECT. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1343–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berman DS, Avidov A, Kang X, Hayes SW, Friedman D, Sciammarella MG, et al. Prognostic validation of a 17-segment score derived from a 20 segment score for myocardial perfusion SPECT interpretation. J Nucl Cardiol 2004;11:414–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Iskandrian AE. Risk assessment of stable patients (panel 3) in winter green panel summaries. J Nucl Cardiol 1999;6:93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pryor DB, Shaw L, McCants CB, Lee KL, Mark DB, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Value of history and physical in identifying patients at increased risk for coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:81–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    DePuey EC, Garcia EV, et al. Updated imaging guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures. J Nucl Cardiol 2001;8:G5–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Martin CJ. Effective dose: How should it be applied to medical exposures? Br J Radiol 2007;80:639–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Duvall WL, Croft LB, Godiwala T, Ginsberg T, Henzlova MJ. Reduced isotope dose with rapid SPECT MPI Imaging: Initial experience with a CZT SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:1009–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    DePuey EG, Bommireddipalli S, Clark J, Leykekhman A, Thompson LB, Friedman M. A comparison of the image quality of full time myocardial perfusion SPECT vs. wide beam reconstruction half time and half dose SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 2011;18:273–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nili Zafrir
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alejandro Solodky
    • 1
    • 2
  • Avi Ben-Shlomo
    • 3
  • Israel Mats
    • 1
    • 2
  • Roman Nevzorov
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexander Battler
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ariel Gutstein
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Nuclear Cardiology Unit, Department of CardiologyRabin Medical CenterPetach TikvaIsrael
  2. 2.Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Soreq NRCYavneIsrael

Personalised recommendations