HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Votaw, J. R. Articles by White, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Votaw, J. R. Articles by White, M.

Comparison of 2-Dimensional and 3-Dimensional Cardiac ⁸²Rb PET Studies

Department of Radiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia

View larger version (115K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 1. Two-dimensional (A) and 3D (B) images of 3 subjects show range of results. Left pair represents better-than-average agreement between 2D and 3D scans of 73-kg male with major defect. Note, however, that septal wall is decreased and apex is noisier in 3D study. Middle pair is from 60-kg female and represents best agreement between 2D and 3D scans. Right pair is from 125-kg male. Both images are noisy but apex is decreased in 3D study.

View larger version (121K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 2. Polar maps of same 3 subjects corresponding to images of Figure 1. Data from 2D study are in top row (1480 MBq injected in each subject), and data from 3D study are in bottom row (370, 740, and 370 MBq injected left to right). See Figure 1 legend for comments about particular studies.

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 3. Number of prompt events (true events + random events + scatter) and random events recorded during phantom and human studies. All data are from phantom experiments except 6 separately indicated data points with error bars, which represent mean ± SD of prompt and random events from human studies. Solid lines indicate results from high-background phantom experiments, and dashed lines indicate results from low-background phantom experiments. Top group of curves is from data collection in 3D mode, and bottom group of curves is from data collection in 2D mode.

View larger version (125K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 4. Images from same phantom experiments as those depicted in Figure 3. Top 2 rows are from low-background experiment, and bottom 2 rows are from high-background experiment. Within each experiment, first row is 2D study and second row is 3D study. Numbers represent simulated amount of 82Rb injected (in MBq).

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 5. Myocardial uptake values from phantom experiments. Differences between low- and high-background curves at low injected radioactivity are attributed to slight differences in preparing phantom for 2 experiments. Quantitative accuracy breaks down in 3D scans because of excessive radioactivity in field of view (approximately 370 MBq 82Rb injected).

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 6. SNR observed during 2 phantom experiments. Random counting rate was slightly higher in high-background experiment and slightly lower in low-background experiment than that seen in human experiments.