Prevalence of compromised 82Rb PET bolus injection integrity assessed by automated quality control algorithms

Objectives: 82Rb PET rest/stress protocols permit determination of a wide variety of left ventricular function & myocardial perfusion parameters, including absolute myocardial blood flow & myocardial flow reserve (MFR) assessed from first pass transit of injected tracer bolus activity. Accur...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978) 2019-05, Vol.60
Hauptverfasser: Van Tosh, Andrew, Cao, J Jane, Votaw, John, Cooke, Charles, Palestro, Christopher, Nichols, Kenneth
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978)
container_volume 60
creator Van Tosh, Andrew
Cao, J Jane
Votaw, John
Cooke, Charles
Palestro, Christopher
Nichols, Kenneth
description Objectives: 82Rb PET rest/stress protocols permit determination of a wide variety of left ventricular function & myocardial perfusion parameters, including absolute myocardial blood flow & myocardial flow reserve (MFR) assessed from first pass transit of injected tracer bolus activity. Accurate MFR computations require a rapid, cleanly-delivered bolus, with activity below levels that could cause count saturation of scanner electronics. We wished to determine the prevalence & character of bolus injection issues, & determine if these issues affected MFR computations. Methods: Data were analyzed retrospectively for 256 rest & regadenoson-stress studies of 128 pts evaluated for known or suspected CAD. A commercially available automated injector was used to deliver pre-determined activities of 82Rb to pts undergoing PET imaging. Data were collected in gated list mode & subsequently rebinned (into 20 3-sec cinematic frames, 5 12-sec frames, & 7 30-sec frames), with the first-pass dynamic portion of the data used to compute MFR. A cardiologist monitored activity delivered to pts during infusion using a beta probe for both rest & stress 82Rb bolus injections to ensure that bolus delivery was sufficiently rapid to provide valid first-pass information. Data were considered only if the cardiologist verified the bolus was delivered within expected time frames. Automated quality control (QC) algorithms subsequently analyzed potential bolus delivery problems as part of measuring MFR. The algorithms flagged potential problems for rest & stress studies in 8 categories: inconsistent frame duration, scanner saturation, inability to detect blood curve peak, inappropriate blood peak width, flat blood curve tail, gradual pt motion & abrupt pt motion. Results: The QC algorithms identified problems for 9 of the 128 pts. During stress there were 4 instances of scanner saturation, 2 blood peak detection, 1 blood peak width problem, 1 gradual motion & 3 abrupt motion; at rest there were 2 instances of blood peak width problems & 2 abrupt motion. In examining whether there were associations of pt characteristics with technical problems, none were found for age (logistic regression p = 0.31), gender (p = 0.63), relative perfusion total severity score (p = 0.27), ejection fraction (p = 0.64) or asynchrony (p = 0.38). However, associations were significant between the occurrence of any technical problem & MFR (χ2 = 8.7, p = 0.003), such that MFR was lower for pts with technical problem
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2236177187</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2236177187</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_22361771873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjcGKwjAURYOMYEf9h4DrQtKSNHtRXMrgXtL61JYkT_OSgfl7I_gBs7r3cg7cGaukalWttO6-WCWklrVSQi3YN9EkhNDGmIr5Y4Rf6yAMwPHKB_SPiH4kuHDT_PT8uDvxHl0mPoYJhjRiKC3BLY7pj1sioLfbl54TepvKeGbr3nTAkCI6bt0Ni373tGLzq3UE608u2Wa_O20PdTl9ZqB0njDHUNC5aVotu06arv2f9QJS6Uu9</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2236177187</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Prevalence of compromised 82Rb PET bolus injection integrity assessed by automated quality control algorithms</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Van Tosh, Andrew ; Cao, J Jane ; Votaw, John ; Cooke, Charles ; Palestro, Christopher ; Nichols, Kenneth</creator><creatorcontrib>Van Tosh, Andrew ; Cao, J Jane ; Votaw, John ; Cooke, Charles ; Palestro, Christopher ; Nichols, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[Objectives: 82Rb PET rest/stress protocols permit determination of a wide variety of left ventricular function & myocardial perfusion parameters, including absolute myocardial blood flow & myocardial flow reserve (MFR) assessed from first pass transit of injected tracer bolus activity. Accurate MFR computations require a rapid, cleanly-delivered bolus, with activity below levels that could cause count saturation of scanner electronics. We wished to determine the prevalence & character of bolus injection issues, & determine if these issues affected MFR computations. Methods: Data were analyzed retrospectively for 256 rest & regadenoson-stress studies of 128 pts evaluated for known or suspected CAD. A commercially available automated injector was used to deliver pre-determined activities of 82Rb to pts undergoing PET imaging. Data were collected in gated list mode & subsequently rebinned (into 20 3-sec cinematic frames, 5 12-sec frames, & 7 30-sec frames), with the first-pass dynamic portion of the data used to compute MFR. A cardiologist monitored activity delivered to pts during infusion using a beta probe for both rest & stress 82Rb bolus injections to ensure that bolus delivery was sufficiently rapid to provide valid first-pass information. Data were considered only if the cardiologist verified the bolus was delivered within expected time frames. Automated quality control (QC) algorithms subsequently analyzed potential bolus delivery problems as part of measuring MFR. The algorithms flagged potential problems for rest & stress studies in 8 categories: inconsistent frame duration, scanner saturation, inability to detect blood curve peak, inappropriate blood peak width, flat blood curve tail, gradual pt motion & abrupt pt motion. Results: The QC algorithms identified problems for 9 of the 128 pts. During stress there were 4 instances of scanner saturation, 2 blood peak detection, 1 blood peak width problem, 1 gradual motion & 3 abrupt motion; at rest there were 2 instances of blood peak width problems & 2 abrupt motion. In examining whether there were associations of pt characteristics with technical problems, none were found for age (logistic regression p = 0.31), gender (p = 0.63), relative perfusion total severity score (p = 0.27), ejection fraction (p = 0.64) or asynchrony (p = 0.38). However, associations were significant between the occurrence of any technical problem & MFR (χ2 = 8.7, p = 0.003), such that MFR was lower for pts with technical problems (1.5±0.5 versus 2.1±0.7, p = 0.01), even though EF was similar (p = 0.70), as was asynchrony bandwidth (p = 0.30), thereby suggesting that MFR computation accuracy was adversely affected by bolus injection technical errors. Conclusions: It is important to verify integrity of the injected 82Rb bolus in order to assure the quality of MFR computations performed as part of CAD pt evaluation.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0161-5505</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1535-5667</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Society of Nuclear Medicine</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Automatic control ; Automation ; Blood flow ; Control algorithms ; Drug delivery systems ; Frames ; Heart ; Injection ; Integrity ; Perfusion ; Positron emission ; Positron emission tomography ; Quality assessment ; Quality assurance ; Quality control ; Regression analysis ; Rest ; Saturation ; Scanners ; Stress ; Tomography ; Ventricle</subject><ispartof>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978), 2019-05, Vol.60</ispartof><rights>Copyright Society of Nuclear Medicine May 1, 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Van Tosh, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cao, J Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Votaw, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cooke, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palestro, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nichols, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><title>Prevalence of compromised 82Rb PET bolus injection integrity assessed by automated quality control algorithms</title><title>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978)</title><description><![CDATA[Objectives: 82Rb PET rest/stress protocols permit determination of a wide variety of left ventricular function & myocardial perfusion parameters, including absolute myocardial blood flow & myocardial flow reserve (MFR) assessed from first pass transit of injected tracer bolus activity. Accurate MFR computations require a rapid, cleanly-delivered bolus, with activity below levels that could cause count saturation of scanner electronics. We wished to determine the prevalence & character of bolus injection issues, & determine if these issues affected MFR computations. Methods: Data were analyzed retrospectively for 256 rest & regadenoson-stress studies of 128 pts evaluated for known or suspected CAD. A commercially available automated injector was used to deliver pre-determined activities of 82Rb to pts undergoing PET imaging. Data were collected in gated list mode & subsequently rebinned (into 20 3-sec cinematic frames, 5 12-sec frames, & 7 30-sec frames), with the first-pass dynamic portion of the data used to compute MFR. A cardiologist monitored activity delivered to pts during infusion using a beta probe for both rest & stress 82Rb bolus injections to ensure that bolus delivery was sufficiently rapid to provide valid first-pass information. Data were considered only if the cardiologist verified the bolus was delivered within expected time frames. Automated quality control (QC) algorithms subsequently analyzed potential bolus delivery problems as part of measuring MFR. The algorithms flagged potential problems for rest & stress studies in 8 categories: inconsistent frame duration, scanner saturation, inability to detect blood curve peak, inappropriate blood peak width, flat blood curve tail, gradual pt motion & abrupt pt motion. Results: The QC algorithms identified problems for 9 of the 128 pts. During stress there were 4 instances of scanner saturation, 2 blood peak detection, 1 blood peak width problem, 1 gradual motion & 3 abrupt motion; at rest there were 2 instances of blood peak width problems & 2 abrupt motion. In examining whether there were associations of pt characteristics with technical problems, none were found for age (logistic regression p = 0.31), gender (p = 0.63), relative perfusion total severity score (p = 0.27), ejection fraction (p = 0.64) or asynchrony (p = 0.38). However, associations were significant between the occurrence of any technical problem & MFR (χ2 = 8.7, p = 0.003), such that MFR was lower for pts with technical problems (1.5±0.5 versus 2.1±0.7, p = 0.01), even though EF was similar (p = 0.70), as was asynchrony bandwidth (p = 0.30), thereby suggesting that MFR computation accuracy was adversely affected by bolus injection technical errors. Conclusions: It is important to verify integrity of the injected 82Rb bolus in order to assure the quality of MFR computations performed as part of CAD pt evaluation.]]></description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Automatic control</subject><subject>Automation</subject><subject>Blood flow</subject><subject>Control algorithms</subject><subject>Drug delivery systems</subject><subject>Frames</subject><subject>Heart</subject><subject>Injection</subject><subject>Integrity</subject><subject>Perfusion</subject><subject>Positron emission</subject><subject>Positron emission tomography</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Quality assurance</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Rest</subject><subject>Saturation</subject><subject>Scanners</subject><subject>Stress</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Ventricle</subject><issn>0161-5505</issn><issn>1535-5667</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNjcGKwjAURYOMYEf9h4DrQtKSNHtRXMrgXtL61JYkT_OSgfl7I_gBs7r3cg7cGaukalWttO6-WCWklrVSQi3YN9EkhNDGmIr5Y4Rf6yAMwPHKB_SPiH4kuHDT_PT8uDvxHl0mPoYJhjRiKC3BLY7pj1sioLfbl54TepvKeGbr3nTAkCI6bt0Ni373tGLzq3UE608u2Wa_O20PdTl9ZqB0njDHUNC5aVotu06arv2f9QJS6Uu9</recordid><startdate>20190501</startdate><enddate>20190501</enddate><creator>Van Tosh, Andrew</creator><creator>Cao, J Jane</creator><creator>Votaw, John</creator><creator>Cooke, Charles</creator><creator>Palestro, Christopher</creator><creator>Nichols, Kenneth</creator><general>Society of Nuclear Medicine</general><scope>4T-</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190501</creationdate><title>Prevalence of compromised 82Rb PET bolus injection integrity assessed by automated quality control algorithms</title><author>Van Tosh, Andrew ; Cao, J Jane ; Votaw, John ; Cooke, Charles ; Palestro, Christopher ; Nichols, Kenneth</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_22361771873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Automatic control</topic><topic>Automation</topic><topic>Blood flow</topic><topic>Control algorithms</topic><topic>Drug delivery systems</topic><topic>Frames</topic><topic>Heart</topic><topic>Injection</topic><topic>Integrity</topic><topic>Perfusion</topic><topic>Positron emission</topic><topic>Positron emission tomography</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Quality assurance</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Rest</topic><topic>Saturation</topic><topic>Scanners</topic><topic>Stress</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Ventricle</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Van Tosh, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cao, J Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Votaw, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cooke, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palestro, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nichols, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Van Tosh, Andrew</au><au>Cao, J Jane</au><au>Votaw, John</au><au>Cooke, Charles</au><au>Palestro, Christopher</au><au>Nichols, Kenneth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Prevalence of compromised 82Rb PET bolus injection integrity assessed by automated quality control algorithms</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978)</jtitle><date>2019-05-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>60</volume><issn>0161-5505</issn><eissn>1535-5667</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[Objectives: 82Rb PET rest/stress protocols permit determination of a wide variety of left ventricular function & myocardial perfusion parameters, including absolute myocardial blood flow & myocardial flow reserve (MFR) assessed from first pass transit of injected tracer bolus activity. Accurate MFR computations require a rapid, cleanly-delivered bolus, with activity below levels that could cause count saturation of scanner electronics. We wished to determine the prevalence & character of bolus injection issues, & determine if these issues affected MFR computations. Methods: Data were analyzed retrospectively for 256 rest & regadenoson-stress studies of 128 pts evaluated for known or suspected CAD. A commercially available automated injector was used to deliver pre-determined activities of 82Rb to pts undergoing PET imaging. Data were collected in gated list mode & subsequently rebinned (into 20 3-sec cinematic frames, 5 12-sec frames, & 7 30-sec frames), with the first-pass dynamic portion of the data used to compute MFR. A cardiologist monitored activity delivered to pts during infusion using a beta probe for both rest & stress 82Rb bolus injections to ensure that bolus delivery was sufficiently rapid to provide valid first-pass information. Data were considered only if the cardiologist verified the bolus was delivered within expected time frames. Automated quality control (QC) algorithms subsequently analyzed potential bolus delivery problems as part of measuring MFR. The algorithms flagged potential problems for rest & stress studies in 8 categories: inconsistent frame duration, scanner saturation, inability to detect blood curve peak, inappropriate blood peak width, flat blood curve tail, gradual pt motion & abrupt pt motion. Results: The QC algorithms identified problems for 9 of the 128 pts. During stress there were 4 instances of scanner saturation, 2 blood peak detection, 1 blood peak width problem, 1 gradual motion & 3 abrupt motion; at rest there were 2 instances of blood peak width problems & 2 abrupt motion. In examining whether there were associations of pt characteristics with technical problems, none were found for age (logistic regression p = 0.31), gender (p = 0.63), relative perfusion total severity score (p = 0.27), ejection fraction (p = 0.64) or asynchrony (p = 0.38). However, associations were significant between the occurrence of any technical problem & MFR (χ2 = 8.7, p = 0.003), such that MFR was lower for pts with technical problems (1.5±0.5 versus 2.1±0.7, p = 0.01), even though EF was similar (p = 0.70), as was asynchrony bandwidth (p = 0.30), thereby suggesting that MFR computation accuracy was adversely affected by bolus injection technical errors. Conclusions: It is important to verify integrity of the injected 82Rb bolus in order to assure the quality of MFR computations performed as part of CAD pt evaluation.]]></abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Society of Nuclear Medicine</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0161-5505
ispartof The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978), 2019-05, Vol.60
issn 0161-5505
1535-5667
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2236177187
source EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Algorithms
Automatic control
Automation
Blood flow
Control algorithms
Drug delivery systems
Frames
Heart
Injection
Integrity
Perfusion
Positron emission
Positron emission tomography
Quality assessment
Quality assurance
Quality control
Regression analysis
Rest
Saturation
Scanners
Stress
Tomography
Ventricle
title Prevalence of compromised 82Rb PET bolus injection integrity assessed by automated quality control algorithms
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T21%3A52%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prevalence%20of%20compromised%2082Rb%20PET%20bolus%20injection%20integrity%20assessed%20by%20automated%20quality%20control%20algorithms&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20nuclear%20medicine%20(1978)&rft.au=Van%20Tosh,%20Andrew&rft.date=2019-05-01&rft.volume=60&rft.issn=0161-5505&rft.eissn=1535-5667&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2236177187%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2236177187&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true