Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportCardiovascular: Basic Science

Differences between 1-compartmental and 2-compartmental model in calculation of MBF in Rb-82 PET imaging

Karin Knesaurek, Josef Machac and Zhuangyu Zhang
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2010, 51 (supplement 2) 1686;
Karin Knesaurek
1Radiology/Nuclear Medicine, The Mt. Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Josef Machac
1Radiology/Nuclear Medicine, The Mt. Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zhuangyu Zhang
1Radiology/Nuclear Medicine, The Mt. Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

1686

Objectives To the best of our knowledge, no comaprison between 1-compartmental and 2-compartmental models (1 & 2 CM) in calcualtion of myocardium blood flow (MBF) and coronary flow reserve (CFR) in Rb-82 PET imaging has been performed. We present our results of comparing 1 & 2 CM in Rb-82 myocardial PET imaging.

Methods Twenty seven patients, mean age 57± 8.3, were imaged at rest and pharmacological stress, following an i.v. injection of 1850 MBq of Rb-82 each. A GE DLS PET-CT+16 scanner was used in this study and all images were acquired in 2D mode. For each study, 50 frames were acquired. The time per frame was 5sec between 0-3 min, 15sec between 3-5 min and 30 sec between 5-8 min. MBF was calculated by using 1 & 2 CM. The results for global and regional LAD, RCA and LCX, rest and stress MBF, and CFR values obtained by 1 & 2 CM were compared by using Bland and Altman method. The reproducibility coefficient was calculated as 1.96 times the SD of the differences between 1 & 2 CM values.

Results The global rest MBF values for both 1 & 2 CM were very similar (0.75 ± 0.17 vs. 0.75 ± 0.17 mL/min/g), and reproducibility was good, 0.12 mL/min/g (15.6% of the mean). The same held true for the stress global MBF values (1.71 ± 0.52 and 1.73 ± 0.47 mL/min/g) with good reproducibility of 0.26 mL/min/g (14.9% of the mean). The regional LCX, LAD and RCA rest and stress MBF values were poorly reproducible, i.e., 50% or more of the mean. The global CFR values for both 1 & 2 CM were very similar (2.37 ± 0.72 vs. 0.2.37 ± 0.80), and reproducibility was good 0.33 (14.1% of the mean).

Conclusions The MBF and CFR global rest and stress values obtained by 1 & 2 CM were close and reproducible. However, the regional LAD, RCA and LCX rest and stress MBF values showed poor reproducibility. Poor regional MBF reproducibility may be caused by sampling error and/or cardiac and breathing motion. We believe that the reproducibility of regional values can be improved by data smoothing and motion gating

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 51, Issue supplement 2
May 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Differences between 1-compartmental and 2-compartmental model in calculation of MBF in Rb-82 PET imaging
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Differences between 1-compartmental and 2-compartmental model in calculation of MBF in Rb-82 PET imaging
Karin Knesaurek, Josef Machac, Zhuangyu Zhang
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2010, 51 (supplement 2) 1686;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Differences between 1-compartmental and 2-compartmental model in calculation of MBF in Rb-82 PET imaging
Karin Knesaurek, Josef Machac, Zhuangyu Zhang
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2010, 51 (supplement 2) 1686;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Cardiovascular: Basic Science

  • Feasibility and characteristics of Ga-68-RGD PET for myocardial infarction imaging
  • Ga-68-labelled hyperbranched polyglycerol for cardiac blood pool imaging
  • Comparison of uptake of CardioPET, a potential PET tracer for myocardial fatty acid utilization and BFPET, a possible PET blood flow marker in fed vs fasted mice
Show more Cardiovascular: Basic Science

Basic Science (Cardiovascular) Posters

  • Feasibility and characteristics of Ga-68-RGD PET for myocardial infarction imaging
  • Ga-68-labelled hyperbranched polyglycerol for cardiac blood pool imaging
  • Comparison of uptake of CardioPET, a potential PET tracer for myocardial fatty acid utilization and BFPET, a possible PET blood flow marker in fed vs fasted mice
Show more Basic Science (Cardiovascular) Posters

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire