Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32410059›Full record

ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2022

Value of SiPM PET in myocardial perfusion imaging using Rubidium-82.

S S Koenders, J A van Dalen, P L Jager, S Knollema, J R Timmer, M Mouden, C H Slump, J D van Dijk

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 96% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Recent Progress in Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Techniques.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Are we good enough in the evaluation of MPI using Rubidium82 with PMT PET/CT? A comparison to SiPM PET/CT.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S S KoendersDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands. skoenders93@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7938-0023
J A van DalenDepartment of Medical Physics, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
P L JagerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
S KnollemaDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
J R TimmerDepartment of Cardiology, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
M MoudenDepartment of Cardiology, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
C H SlumpTechnical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
J D van DijkDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7514-789X
Isala · NLUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPET scanners using silicon photomultipliers with digital readout (SiPM PET) have an improved temporal and spatial resolution compared to PET scanners using conventional photomultiplier tubes (PMT PET). However, the effect on image quality and visibility of perfusion defects in myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is unknown. Our aim was to determine the value of a SiPM PET scanner in MPI.

methodsWe prospectively included 30 patients who underwent rest and regadenoson-induced stress Rubidium-82 (Rb-82) MPI on the D690 PMT PET (GE Healthcare) and within three weeks on the Vereos SiPM PET (Philips Healthcare). Two expert readers scored the image quality and assessed the existence of possible defects. In addition, interpreter's confidence, myocardial blood flow (MBF), and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) values were compared.

resultsImage quality improved (P = 0.03) using the Vereos as compared to the D690. Image quality of the Vereos and the D690 was graded fair in 20% and 10%, good in 60% and 50%, and excellent in 20% and 40%, respectively. Defect interpretation and interpreter's confidence did not differ between the D690 and the Vereos (P > 0.50). There were no significant differences in rest MBF (P ≥ 0.29), stress MBF (P ≥ 0.11), and MFR (P ≥ 0.51).

conclusionSiPM PET provides an improved image quality in comparison with PMT PET. Defect interpretation, interpreter's confidence, and absolute blood flow measurements were comparable between both systems. SiPM PET is therefore a reliable technique for MPI using Rb-82.

trial registrationToetsingOnline NL63853.075.17. Registered 13 November, 2017.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseMyocardial Perfusion ImagingCoronary CirculationHumansPositron-Emission TomographyRubidium RadioisotopesTomography, X-Ray ComputedRubidium-82Rubidium Radioisotopesmyocardial blood flowmyocardial perfusion imagingPETRb-82SiPM PET

Identifiers

PMID32410059
PMCPMC8873116
OpenAlexW3016526340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.