Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 596–605 | Cite as

The impact of prompt gamma compensation on myocardial blood flow measurements with rubidium-82 dynamic PET

  • Ian S. Armstrong
  • Matthew J. Memmott
  • Christine M. Tonge
  • Parthiban Arumugam
Original Article



Rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion imaging is a well-established technique for assessing myocardial ischemia. With continuing interest on myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) measurements, there is a requirement to fully appreciate the impact of technical aspects of the process. One such factor for rubidium-82 is prompt gamma compensation (PGC). This study aims to assess the impact of PGC on MBF and MFR calculated from dynamic Rb-82 data.


Dynamic rest and stress images were acquired on a Siemens Biograph mCT and reconstructed with and without PGC in 50 patients (29 male). MBF and MFR were measured in the three main coronary territories as well as globally.


With PGC, statistically significant reductions in MBF were observed in LAD (−6.9%), LCx (−4.8%), and globally (−6.5%) but only in obese patients. Significant increases in MBF were observed in RCA (+6.4%) in only nonobese patients. In very obese patients, differences of up to 40% in MBF were observed between PGC and non-PGC images. In nearly all cases, similar PGC differences were observed at stress and rest so there were no significant differences in MFR; however, in a small number of very obese patients, differences in excess of 20% were observed.


PGC results in statistically significant changes in MBF, with the greatest reductions observed in the LAD and LCx territories of obese patients. In most cases, the impact on stress and rest data is of similar relative magnitudes and changes to MFR are small.


PET/CT imaging coronary flow reserve PET image reconstruction physics of imaging 



Blood input function


Coronary artery disease


Left anterior descending coronary artery


Left circumflex coronary artery


Myocardial blood flow


Myocardial flow reserve


Positron emission tomography


Prompt gamma compensation


Right coronary artery



There are no conflicts of interest for Ian Armstrong, Matthew Memmott, Christine Tonge, and Parthiban Arumugam associated with this study.

Supplementary material

12350_2016_583_MOESM1_ESM.ppt (1.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPT 1144 kb)


  1. 1.
    Hagemann CE, Ghotbi AA, Kjær A, Hasbak P. Quantitative myocardial blood flow with Rubidium-82 PET: A clinical perspective. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015;5:457-68.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sciagrà R, Passeri A, Bucerius J, Verbern HJ, Slart RHJA Lindner O et al. Clinical use of quantitative cardiac perfusion PET: rationale, modalities and possible indications. Position paper of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016;43:780-92.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bateman TM, Heller GV, McGhie AI, Friedman-John D, Case James A, Bryngelson Jan R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of rest/stress ECG-gated Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET: Comparison with ECG-gated Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 2006;13:24-33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flotats A, Bravo P, Fukushima K, Chaudhry M, Merrill J, Bengel F. 82Rb PET myocardial perfusion imaging is superior to 99mTc-labelled agent SPECT in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39:1233-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tout D, Davidson G, Hurley C, Bartley M, Arumugam P, Bradley A. Comparison of occupational radiation exposure from myocardial perfusion imaging with Rb-82 PET and Tc-99m SPECT. Nucl Med Commun 2014;35:1032-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ziadi MC, deKemp RA, Williams KA, Guo A, Chow BJW, Renaud JM, et al. Impaired myocardial flow reserve on rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging predicts adverse outcomes in patients assessed for myocardial ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:740-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ziadi MDMC, Ph DRAd, Williams MSK, Guo MEA, Renaud MSJM, Chow MDBJW, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schindler TH, Schelbert HR, Quercioli A, Dilsizian V. Cardiac PET imaging for the detection and monitoring of coronary artery disease and microvascular health. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3:623-40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dorbala S, Di Carli MF, Beanlands RS, Merhige ME, Williams BA, Veledar E, et al. Prognostic value of stress myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography: Results from a multicenter observational registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:176-84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaufmann PA, Camici PG. Myocardial blood flow measurement by PET: Technical aspects and clinical applications. J Nucl Med 2005;46:75-88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klein R, Renaud JM, Ziadi MC, Thorn SL, Adler A, Beanlands RS, et al. Intra- and inter-operator repeatability of myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve measurements using rubidium-82 pet and a highly automated analysis program. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:600-16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moody JB, Lee BC, Corbett JR, Ficaro EP, Murthy VL. Precision and accuracy of clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow by dynamic PET: A technical perspective. J Nucl Cardiol 2015;22:935-51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suda M, Onoguchi M, Tomiyama T, Ishihara K, Takahashi N, Sakurai M, et al. The reproducibility of time-of-flight PET and conventional PET for the quantification of myocardial blood flow and coronary flow reserve with 13N-ammonia. J Nucl Cardiol 2016;23:457-72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tomiyama T, Ishihara K, Suda M, Kanaya K, Sakurai M, Takahashi N, et al. Impact of time-of-flight on qualitative and quantitative analyses of myocardial perfusion PET studies using 13N-ammonia. J Nucl Cardiol 2015;22:998-1007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Presotto L, Gianolli L, Gilardi MC, Bettinardia V. Evaluation of image reconstruction algorithms encompassing Time-Of-Flight and Point Spread Function modelling for quantitative cardiac PET: Phantom studies. J Nucl Cardiol 2015;22:351-63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Armstrong IS, Tonge CM, Arumugam P. Impact of point spread function modeling and time-of-flight on myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve measurements for rubidium-82 cardiac PET. J Nucl Cardiol 2014;21:467-74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hayden C Jr, Casey M, Watson C. Prompt gamma correction for non-standard isotopes in a PET scanner. US Patent 7,894,652, 2011.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Watson CC, Newport D, Casey ME, deKemp RA, Beanlands RS, Schmand M. Evaluation of simulation-based scatter correction for 3-D PET cardiac imaging. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1997;44:90-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Esteves FP, Nye JA, Khan A, Folks RD, Halkar RK, Garcia EV, et al. Prompt-gamma compensation in Rb-82 myocardial perfusion 3D PET/CT. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:247-53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Renaud JM, Mylonas I, McArdle B, Dowsley T, Yip K, Turcotte E, et al. Clinical interpretation standards and quality assurance for the multicenter PET/CT trial rubidium-ARMI. J Nucl Med 2014;55:58-64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tout D, Tonge CM, Muthu S, Arumugam P. Assessment of a protocol for routine simultaneous myocardial blood flow measurement and standard myocardial perfusion imaging with rubidium-82 on a high count rate positron emission tomography system. Nucl Med Commun 2012;33:1202-11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coxson PG, Huesman RH, Borland L. Consequences of using a simplified kinetic model for dynamic PET data. J Nucl Med 1997;38:660-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lortie M, Beanlands R, Yoshinaga K, Klein R, DaSilva J, deKemp R. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1765-74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nesterov SV, Deshayes E, Sciagrà R, Settimo L, Declerck JM, Pan XB, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow in absolute terms using 82Rb PET imaging: The RUBY-10 study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7:1119-27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Preylowski V, Schlogl S, Schoenahl F, Jorg G, Samnick S, Buck AK, et al. Is the image quality of I-124-PET impaired by an automatic correction of prompt gammas? PLoS One 2013;8:e71729.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gabrani-Juma H, Clarkin O, deKemp R, Klein R. Optimized 82Rb infusion profile for flow quantification with low count-rate PET system using a physical flow phantom. J Nucl Med 2016;57:1944.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian S. Armstrong
    • 1
  • Matthew J. Memmott
    • 1
  • Christine M. Tonge
    • 1
  • Parthiban Arumugam
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuclear MedicineCentral Manchester University HospitalsManchesterUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations