Repeatable and reproducible measurements of myocardial oxidative metabolism, blood flow and external efficiency using {sup 11}C-acetate PET

Background: Non-invasive approaches to investigate myocardial efficiency can help track the progression of heart failure (HF). This study evaluates the repeatability and reproducibility of {sup 11}C-acetate positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of oxidative metabolism. Methods and results: Dyna...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of nuclear cardiology 2018-12, Vol.25 (6)
Hauptverfasser: Wu, Kai Yi, Dinculescu, Vincent, Renaud, Jennifer M., Chen, Shin-Yee, Burwash, Ian G., Mielniczuk, Lisa M., Beanlands, Rob S. B., Kemp, Robert A. de
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: Non-invasive approaches to investigate myocardial efficiency can help track the progression of heart failure (HF). This study evaluates the repeatability and reproducibility of {sup 11}C-acetate positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of oxidative metabolism. Methods and results: Dynamic {sup 11}C-acetate PET scans were performed at baseline and followup (47 ± 22 days apart) in 20 patients with stable HF with reduced ejection fraction. Two observers blinded to patients’ clinical data used FlowQuant{sup ®} to evaluate test–retest repeatability, as well as intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of {sup 11}C-acetate tracer uptake and clearance rates, for the measurement of myocardial oxygen consumption (MVO{sub 2}), myocardial external efficiency (MEE), work metabolic index (WMI), and myocardial blood flow. Reproducibility and repeatability were evaluated using intra-class-correlation (ICC) and Bland–Altman coefficient-of-repeatability (CR). Test–retest correlations and repeatability were better for MEE and WMI compared to MVO{sub 2}. All intra- and inter-observer correlations were excellent (ICC = 0.95-0.99) and the reproducibility values (CR = 3%-6%) were significantly lower than the test–retest repeatability values (22%-54%, P 
ISSN:1532-6551
1532-6551
DOI:10.1007/s12350-018-1206-y