Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Simplified quantification of 13N-ammonia PET myocardial blood flow: A comparative study with the standard compartment model to facilitate clinical use

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

Abstract

Background

Short imaging protocol to quantify myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) may enhance the clinical application of 13N-ammonia cardiac PET. We assessed the flow quantitation of 13N-ammonia PET implementing simple retention model and two-compartment model.

Methods

Fourteen healthy volunteers (HVT) and twenty-three clinical patients received 13N-ammonia PET/CT. The simple retention model used the first 7-minute image to quantify MBF. Global and regional MBF and MFR of the two models were compared.

Results

Global and regional MBF and MFR of these two models were highly correlated with mildly inferior correlation in RCA territory (global R2: rest MBF = 0.79, stress MBF = 0.65, MFR = 0.77; regional R2: rest MBF ≥ 0.72, stress MBF ≥ 0.52, MFR ≥ 0.68). There were significant differences for MFR (4.04 ± 0.72, 3.66 ± 0.48, p = .02) and rest MBF (0.69 ± 0.12, 0.78 ± 0.12, p = .02) between the two models in the HVT group.

Conclusions

13N-ammonia global and regional MBF and MFR from the simple retention model demonstrate strong correlations with that from the two-compartment model. Significant differences of MFR and rest MBF are noted in the HVT group, with a proposed normal reference value for the 13N-ammonia short simple retention protocol.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AI:

Arterial input

AIF:

Arterial input function

CI:

Confidence interval

HVT:

Healthy volunteers

IDAI:

Image-derived arterial input

LoA:

Limits of agreement

MBF:

Myocardial blood flow

MFR:

Myocardial flow reserve

PS:

Permeability-surface area

TAC:

Time-activity curve

References

  1. Murthy VL, Bateman TM, Beanlands RS, Berman DS, Borges-Neto S, Chareonthaitawee P, et al. Clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow using PET: Joint position paper of the SNMMI Cardiovascular Council and the ASNC. J Nucl Cardiol 2018;25:269-97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gould KL, Johnson NP, Bateman TM, Beanlands RS, Bengel FM, Bober R, et al. Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease. Role of coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and positron emission tomography imaging in revascularization decision-making. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:1639-53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson NP, Gould KL. Integrating noninvasive absolute flow, coronary flow reserve, and ischemic thresholds into a comprehensive map of physiological severity. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;5:430-40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tahari AK, Lee A, Rajaram M, Fukushima K, Lodge MA, Lee BC, et al. Absolute myocardial flow quantification with (82)Rb PET/CT: Comparison of different software packages and methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2014;41:126-35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Nesterov SV, Deshayes E, Sciagra R, Settimo L, Declerk JM, Pan XB, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow in absolute terms using (82)Rb PET imaging: The RUBY-10 Study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7:1119-27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Johnson NP, Gould KL. Physiological basis for angina and ST-segment change PET-verified thresholds of quantitative stress myocardial perfusion and coronary flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4:990-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hsu B, Hu LH, Yang BH, Chen LC, Chen YK, Ting CH, et al. SPECT myocardial blood flow quantitation toward clinical use: A comparative study with 13N-Ammonia PET myocardial blood flow quantitation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017;44:117-28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Yoshida K, Mullani N, Gould KL. Coronary flow and flow reserve by PET simplified for clinical applications using rubidium-82 or nitrogen-13-ammonia. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1701-12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Murthy VL, Lee BC, Sitek A, Naya M, Moody J, Polavarapu V, et al. Comparison and prognostic validation of multiple methods of quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb PET. J Nucl Med 2014;55:1952-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Vasquez AF, Johnson NP, Gould KL. Variation in quantitative myocardial perfusion due to arterial input selection. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;6:559-68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Beanlands RS, deKemp R, Scheffel A, Nahmias C, Garnett ES, Goates G, et al. Can nitrogen-13 ammonia kinetic modeling define myocardial viability independent of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose? JACC. 1997;29:537-43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Renaud JM, DaSilva JN, Beanlands RS, DeKemp RA. Characterizing the normal range of myocardial blood flow with 82rubidium and 13N-ammonia PET imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2013;20:578-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Slomka PJ, Alexanderson E, Jacome R, Jimenez M, Romero E, Meave A, et al. Comparison of clinical tools for measurements of regional stress and rest myocardial blood flow assessed with 13N-ammonia PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2012;53:171-81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Tinsu Pan, PhD, Liang-Chih Wu, PhD, and Nien-Yun Wu, MS, for their technical assistance in performing the cardiac PET analysis. Professor Ren-Shyan Liu was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (MOST 105-2314-B-010-034-MY2; MOST 107-NU-E-010-002-NU), and supported by the Department of Health (MOHW107-TDU-B-211-114019).

Disclosure

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Guang-Uei Hung and Bailing Hsu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital and National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Chih-Yung Chang MD, Bang-Hung Yang PhD, Chi-Wei Chang PhD, Lien-Hsin Hu MD, Wen-Sheng Huang MD & Ren-Shyan Liu MD

  2. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, School of Biomedical Science and Engineering, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Chih-Yung Chang MD, Bailing Hsu PhD, Bang-Hung Yang PhD, Wen-Sheng Huang MD, Hsin-Ell Wang PhD & Ren-Shyan Liu MD

  3. School of Medicine, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan

    Chih-Yung Chang MD & Wen-Sheng Huang MD

  4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chang Bing Show Chwan Memorial Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan

    Guang-Uei Hung MD

  5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital and National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Tao-Cheng Wu MD, PhD

  6. Biomedical Imaging Research Center, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Ren-Shyan Liu MD

  7. Molecular and Genetic Imaging Core, Taiwan Animal Consortium, Taipei, Taiwan

    Ren-Shyan Liu MD

  8. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, No. 45, Cheng Hsin St., Pai-Tou, Taipei, 112, Taiwan

    Ren-Shyan Liu MD

Authors
  1. Chih-Yung Chang MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guang-Uei Hung MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bailing Hsu PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bang-Hung Yang PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chi-Wei Chang PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lien-Hsin Hu MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Wen-Sheng Huang MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hsin-Ell Wang PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tao-Cheng Wu MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ren-Shyan Liu MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ren-Shyan Liu MD.

Additional information

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 716 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chang, CY., Hung, GU., Hsu, B. et al. Simplified quantification of 13N-ammonia PET myocardial blood flow: A comparative study with the standard compartment model to facilitate clinical use. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 27, 819–828 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-1450-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-1450-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation