Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

Open Access 01-07-2020 | Positron Emission Tomography | Original Article

Comparison between quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging and [¹⁵O]H₂O positron emission tomography

Authors: Henk Everaars, Pepijn A. van Diemen, Michiel J. Bom, Stefan P. Schumacher, Ruben W. de Winter, Peter M. van de Ven, Pieter G. Raijmakers, Adriaan A. Lammertsma, Mark B. M. Hofman, Rob J. van der Geest, Marco J. Götte, Albert C. van Rossum, Robin Nijveldt, Ibrahim Danad, Roel S. Driessen, Paul Knaapen

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 7/2020

Abstract

Purpose

To compare cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with [¹⁵O]H₂O positron emission tomography (PET) for quantification of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods

Fifty-nine patients with stable CAD underwent CMR and [¹⁵O]H₂O PET. The CMR imaging protocol included late gadolinium enhancement to rule out presence of scar tissue and perfusion imaging using a dual sequence, single bolus technique. Absolute MBF was determined for the three main vascular territories at rest and during vasodilator stress.

Results

CMR measurements of regional stress MBF and MFR showed only moderate correlation to those obtained using PET (r = 0.39; P < 0.001 for stress MBF and r = 0.36; P < 0.001 for MFR). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a significant bias of 0.2 ± 1.0 mL/min/g for stress MBF and − 0.5 ± 1.2 for MFR. CMR-derived stress MBF and MFR demonstrated area under the curves of respectively 0.72 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.79) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.83) and had optimal cutoff values of 2.35 mL/min/g and 2.25 for detecting abnormal myocardial perfusion, defined as [¹⁵O]H₂O PET-derived stress MBF ≤ 2.3 mL/min/g and MFR ≤ 2.5. Using these cutoff values, CMR and PET were concordant in 137 (77%) vascular territories for stress MBF and 135 (80%) vascular territories for MFR.

Conclusion

CMR measurements of stress MBF and MFR showed modest agreement to those obtained with [¹⁵O]H₂O PET. Nevertheless, stress MBF and MFR were concordant between CMR and [¹⁵O]H₂O PET in 77% and 80% of vascular territories, respectively.

Task Force M, Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, Andreotti F, Arden C, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(38):2949–3003. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht296.CrossRef

Sammut EC, Villa ADM, Di Giovine G, Dancy L, Bosio F, Gibbs T, et al. Prognostic value of quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11(5):686–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.07.022.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Akil S, Hedeer F, Carlsson M, Arheden H, Oddstig J, Hindorf C, et al. Qualitative assessments of myocardial ischemia by cardiac MRI and coronary stenosis by invasive coronary angiography in relation to quantitative perfusion by positron emission tomography in patients with known or suspected stable coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-01555-1.

Mordini FE, Haddad T, Hsu L-Y, Kellman P, Lowrey TB, Aletras AH, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fully quantitative, semi-quantitative, and qualitative assessment of stress perfusion CMR compared to quantitative coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2014;7(1):14.CrossRef

Ta AD, Hsu LY, Conn HM, Winkler S, Greve AM, Shanbhag SM, et al. Fully quantitative pixel-wise analysis of cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion improves discrimination of dark rim artifact from perfusion defects associated with epicardial coronary stenosis. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018;20(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-018-0436-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Christian TF, Rettmann DW, Aletras AH, Liao SL, Taylor JL, Balaban RS, et al. Absolute myocardial perfusion in canines measured by using dual-bolus first-pass MR imaging. Radiology. 2004;232(3):677–84. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2323030573.CrossRefPubMed

Hsu LY, Groves DW, Aletras AH, Kellman P, Arai AE. A quantitative pixel-wise measurement of myocardial blood flow by contrast-enhanced first-pass CMR perfusion imaging: microsphere validation in dogs and feasibility study in humans. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(2):154–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2011.07.013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bergmann SR, Fox KA, Rand AL, McElvany KD, Welch MJ, Markham J, et al. Quantification of regional myocardial blood flow in vivo with H215O. Circulation. 1984;70(4):724–33.CrossRef

Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Harms HJ, Heymans MW, van Royen N, Lubberink M, et al. Impact of anatomical and functional severity of coronary atherosclerotic plaques on the transmural perfusion gradient: a [15O]H2O PET study. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(31):2094–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu170.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Harms HJ, Knaapen P, de Haan S, Halbmeijer R, Lammertsma AA, Lubberink M. Automatic generation of absolute myocardial blood flow images using [15O]H2O and a clinical PET/CT scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(5):930–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1730-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Gatehouse PD, Elkington AG, Ablitt NA, Yang GZ, Pennell DJ, Firmin DN. Accurate assessment of the arterial input function during high-dose myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;20(1):39–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20054.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Chefd’Hotel C, Hermosillo G, Faugeras O, editors. Flows of diffeomorphisms for multimodal image registration. Biomedical Imaging, 2002. Proceedings. 2002 IEEE International Symposium on; 2002: IEEE.

13.

Kremers FP, Hofman MB, Groothuis JG, Jerosch-Herold M, Beek AM, Zuehlsdorff S, et al. Improved correction of spatial inhomogeneities of surface coils in quantitative analysis of first-pass myocardial perfusion imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(1):227–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21998.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Breuer FA, Kellman P, Griswold MA, Jakob PM. Dynamic autocalibrated parallel imaging using temporal GRAPPA (TGRAPPA). Magn Reson Med. 2005;53(4):981–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.20430.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Jerosch-Herold M, Swingen C, Seethamraju RT. Myocardial blood flow quantification with MRI by model-independent deconvolution. Med Phys. 2002;29(5):886–97. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1473135.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, Jacobs AK, Kaul S, Laskey WK, et al. Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart a statement for healthcare professionals from the cardiac imaging committee of the council on clinical cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2002;105(4):539–42. https://doi.org/10.1161/hc0402.102975.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Danad I, Uusitalo V, Kero T, Saraste A, Raijmakers PG, Lammertsma AA, et al. Quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion in the detection of significant coronary artery disease: cutoff values and diagnostic accuracy of quantitative [(15)O]H2O PET imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(14):1464–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.069.CrossRef

18.

Kajander SA, Joutsiniemi E, Saraste M, Pietila M, Ukkonen H, Saraste A, et al. Clinical value of absolute quantification of myocardial perfusion with (15)O-water in coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4(6):678–84. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.110.960732.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Fiechter M, Ghadri JR, Gebhard C, Fuchs TA, Pazhenkottil AP, Nkoulou RN, et al. Diagnostic value of 13N-ammonia myocardial perfusion PET: added value of myocardial flow reserve. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(8):1230–4. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.101840.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Juarez-Orozco LE, Tio RA, Alexanderson E, Dweck M, Vliegenthart R, El Moumni M, et al. Quantitative myocardial perfusion evaluation with positron emission tomography and the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review of prognostic studies. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jex331.CrossRef

21.

Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams K, Guo A, Renaud JM, Chow BJ, et al. Does quantification of myocardial flow reserve using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography facilitate detection of multivessel coronary artery disease? J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19(4):670–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-011-9506-5.CrossRef

22.

Liu A, Wijesurendra RS, Liu JM, Forfar JC, Channon KM, Jerosch-Herold M, et al. Diagnosis of microvascular angina using cardiac magnetic resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(9):969–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.12.046.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Parkka JP, Niemi P, Saraste A, Koskenvuo JW, Komu M, Oikonen V, et al. Comparison of MRI and positron emission tomography for measuring myocardial perfusion reserve in healthy humans. Magn Reson Med. 2006;55(4):772–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.20833.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Fritz-Hansen T, Hove JD, Kofoed KF, Kelbaek H, Larsson HB. Quantification of MRI measured myocardial perfusion reserve in healthy humans: a comparison with positron emission tomography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27(4):818–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21306.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Pack NA, DiBella EV, Rust TC, Kadrmas DJ, McGann CJ, Butterfield R, et al. Estimating myocardial perfusion from dynamic contrast-enhanced CMR with a model-independent deconvolution method. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2008;10:52. https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429X-10-52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Tomiyama Y, Manabe O, Oyama-Manabe N, Naya M, Sugimori H, Hirata K, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with dynamic perfusion 3.0 tesla MRI: validation with (15) O-water PET. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42(3):754–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24834.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Qayyum AA, Hasbak P, Larsson HBW, Christensen TE, Ghotbi AA, Mathiasen AB, et al. Quantification of myocardial perfusion using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging correlates significantly to rubidium-82 positron emission tomography in patients with severe coronary artery disease: a preliminary study. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(7):1120–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.04.004.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Morton G, Chiribiri A, Ishida M, Hussain ST, Schuster A, Indermuehle A, et al. Quantification of absolute myocardial perfusion in patients with coronary artery disease: comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(16):1546–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.05.052.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Engblom H, Xue H, Akil S, Carlsson M, Hindorf C, Oddstig J, et al. Fully quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion ready for clinical use: a comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017;19(1):78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-017-0388-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Kunze KP, Nekolla SG, Rischpler C, Zhang SH, Hayes C, Langwieser N, et al. Myocardial perfusion quantification using simultaneously acquired (13) NH3 -ammonia PET and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in patients at rest and stress. Magn Reson Med. 2018;80(6):2641–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.27213.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Kero T, Johansson E, Engstrom M, Eggers KM, Johansson L, Ahlstrom H, et al. Evaluation of quantitative CMR perfusion imaging by comparison with simultaneous (15)O-water-PET. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-019-01810-z.

32.

Lee DC, Johnson NP. Quantification of absolute myocardial blood flow by magnetic resonance perfusion imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2(6):761–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2009.04.003.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Driessen RS, Raijmakers PG, Stuijfzand WJ, Knaapen P. Myocardial perfusion imaging with PET. Int J Card Imaging. 2017;33(7):1021–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-017-1084-4.CrossRef

34.

van Dijk R, van Assen M, Vliegenthart R, de Bock GH, van der Harst P, Oudkerk M. Diagnostic performance of semi-quantitative and quantitative stress CMR perfusion analysis: a meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017;19(1):92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-017-0393-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Kellman P, Aletras AH, Hsu LY, McVeigh ER, Arai AE. T2* measurement during first-pass contrast-enhanced cardiac perfusion imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2006;56(5):1132–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.21061.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Tong CY, Prato FS, Wisenberg G, Lee TY, Carroll E, Sandler D, et al. Measurement of the extraction efficiency and distribution volume for Gd-DTPA in normal and diseased canine myocardium. Magn Reson Med. 1993;30(3):337–46.CrossRef

37.

Rossen JD, Winniford MD. Effect of increases in heart rate and arterial pressure on coronary flow reserve in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;21(2):343–8.CrossRef

Title: Comparison between quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging and [15O]H2O positron emission tomography
Authors: Henk Everaars
Pepijn A. van Diemen
Michiel J. Bom
Stefan P. Schumacher
Ruben W. de Winter
Peter M. van de Ven
Pieter G. Raijmakers
Adriaan A. Lammertsma
Mark B. M. Hofman
Rob J. van der Geest
Marco J. Götte
Albert C. van Rossum
Robin Nijveldt
Ibrahim Danad
Roel S. Driessen
Paul Knaapen
Publication date: 01-07-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Positron Emission Tomography
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 7/2020
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04641-9

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison between quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging and [¹⁵O]H₂O positron emission tomography

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2020

PET imaging of COVID-19: the target and the number

Nuclear medicine in responding to global pandemic COVID-19—American College of Nuclear Medicine member experience

CT, [18F]FDG-PET/CT and clinical findings before and during early Covid-19 onset in a patient affected by vascular tumour

Reply to “No time like the present: time to rethink our habits in science and continuous medical education?”

COVID19 impact on nuclear medicine: an Australian perspective

The potential added value of FDG PET/CT for COVID-19 pneumonia