Search

Purpose To estimate the interobserver agreement of the Carimas software package (SP) on global, regional, and segmental levels for the most widely used myocardial perfusion PET tracer—Rb-82. Materials and methods Rest and stress Rb-82 PET scans of 48 patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD) were analyzed in four centers using the Carimas SP. We considered values to agree if they simultaneously had an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.75 and a difference Results The median values on the segmental level were 1.08 mL/min/g for rest myocardial blood flow (MBF), 2.24 mL/min/g for stress MBF, and 2.17 for myocardial flow reserve (MFR). For the rest MBF and MFR, all the values at all the levels fulfilled were in excellent agreement. For stress MBF, at the global and regional levels, all the 24 comparisons showed excellent agreement. Only 1 out of 102 segmental comparisons (seg. 14) was over the adequate agreement limit—23.5% of the median value (ICC = 0.95). Conclusion Interobserver agreement for Rb-82 PET myocardial perfusion quantification analyzed with Carimas is good at any LV segmentation level—global, regional, and segmental. It is good for all the estimates—rest MBF, stress MBF, and MFR.

International audience; OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) estimates from rubidium-82 positron emission tomography ((82)Rb PET) data using 10 software packages (SPs) based on 8 tracer kinetic models. BACKGROUND: It is unknown how MBF and MFR values from existing SPs agree for (82)Rb PET. METHODS: Rest and stress (82)Rb PET scans of 48 patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease were analyzed in 10 centers. Each center used 1 of 10 SPs to analyze global and regional MBF using the different kinetic models implemented. Values were considered to agree if they simultaneously had an intraclass correlation coefficient \textgreater0.75 and a difference \textless20% of the median across all programs. RESULTS: The most common model evaluated was the Ottawa Heart Institute 1-tissue compartment model (OHI-1-TCM). MBF values from 7 of 8 SPs implementing this model agreed best. Values from 2 other models (alternative 1-TCM and Axially distributed) also agreed well, with occasional differences. The MBF results from other models (e.g., 2-TCM and retention) were less in agreement with values from OHI-1-TCM. CONCLUSIONS: SPs using the most common kinetic model-OHI-1-TCM-provided consistent results in measuring global and regional MBF values, suggesting that they may be used interchangeably to process data acquired with a common imaging protocol.