RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Value of SiPM PET in myocardial perfusion imaging using Rubidium-82
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.04.23.20076844
DO 10.1101/2020.04.23.20076844
A1 S.S. Koenders
A1 J.A. van Dalen
A1 P.L. Jager
A1 S. Knollema
A1 JR Timmer
A1 M. Mouden
A1 C.H. Slump
A1 J.D. van Dijk
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/26/2020.04.23.20076844.abstract
AB Background PET scanners using silicon photomultipliers with digital readout (SiPM PET) have an improved temporal and spatial resolution compared to PET scanners using conventional photomultiplier tubes (PMT PET). However, the effect on image quality and visibility of perfusion defects in myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is unknown. Our aim was to determine the value of a SiPM PET scanner in MPI.Methods We prospectively included 30 patients who underwent rest and regadenoson-induced stress Rubidium-82 (Rb-82) MPI on the D690 PMT PET (GE Healthcare) and within three weeks on the Vereos SiPM PET (Philips Healthcare). Two expert readers scored the image quality and assessed the existence of possible defects. In addition, interpreter’s confidence, myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) values were compared.Results Image quality improved (p=0.03) using the Vereos as compared to the D690. Image quality of the Vereos and the D690 was graded fair in 20% and 10%, good in 60% and 50%, and excellent in 20% and 40%, respectively. Defect interpretation and interpreter’s confidence did not differ between the D690 and the Vereos (p>0.50). There were no significant differences in rest MBF (p≥0.29), stress MBF (p≥0.11) and MFR (p≥0.51).Conclusion SiPM PET provides an improved image quality in comparison to PMT PET. Defect interpretation, interpreter’s confidence and absolute blood flow measurements were comparable between both systems. SiPM PET is therefore a reliable technique for MPI using Rb-82.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by a research grant of Philips Healthcare. The content of the article was solely the responsibility of the authors.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThis work was supported by a research grant of Philips Healthcare. The content of the article was solely the responsibility of the authors.CTComputed tomographyLADLeft anterior descendingLCXLeft circumflexLVLeft ventricleMBFMyocardial blood flowMFRMyocardial flow reserveMPIMyocardial perfusion imagingPETPositron emission tomographyRb-82Rubidium-82TACTime activity curve