Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33655444›Full record

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

Effect of temporal sampling protocols on myocardial blood flow measurements using Rubidium-82 PET.

S S Koenders, J D van Dijk, P L Jager, M Mouden, A G Tegelaar, C H Slump, J A van Dalen

Abstract 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Patient-tailored risk assessment of obstructive coronary artery disease using Rubidium-82 PET-based myocardial flow quantification with visual interpretation.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023
    Article
  2. Machine learning based model to diagnose obstructive coronary artery disease using calcium scoring, PET imaging, and clinical data.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023
    Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

S S KoendersDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Isala Hospital, PO Box 10400, 8000 GK, Zwolle, The Netherlands. skoenders93@gmail.com.
J D van DijkDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Isala Hospital, PO Box 10400, 8000 GK, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
P L JagerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Isala Hospital, PO Box 10400, 8000 GK, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
M MoudenDepartment of Cardiology, Isala hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
A G TegelaarDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Isala Hospital, PO Box 10400, 8000 GK, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
C H SlumpTechnical Medical Center, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
J A van DalenDepartment of Medical Physics, Isala hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA variety of temporal sampling protocols is used worldwide to measure myocardial blood flow (MBF). Both the length and number of time frames in these protocols may alter MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) measurements. We aimed to assess the effect of different clinically used temporal sampling protocols on MBF and MFR quantification in Rubidium-82 (Rb-82) PET imaging.

methodsWe retrospectively included 20 patients referred for myocardial perfusion imaging using Rb-82 PET. A literature search was performed to identify appropriate sampling protocols. PET data were reconstructed using 14 selected temporal sampling protocols with time frames of 5-10 seconds in the first-pass phase and 30-120 seconds in the tissue phase. Rest and stress MBF and MFR were calculated for all protocols and compared to the reference protocol with 26 time frames.

resultsMBF measurements differed (P ≤ 0.003) in six (43%) protocols in comparison to the reference protocol, with mean absolute relative differences up to 16% (range 5%-31%). Statistically significant differences were most frequently found for protocols with tissue phase time frames < 90 seconds. MFR did not differ (P ≥ 0.11) for any of the protocols.

conclusionsVarious temporal sampling protocols result in different MBF values using Rb-82 PET. MFR measurements were more robust to different temporal sampling protocols.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseMyocardial Perfusion ImagingCoronary CirculationHumansPositron-Emission TomographyRetrospective StudiesRubidium RadioisotopesRubidium-82Rubidium Radioisotopes82rbMyocardial blood flowPET myocardial perfusion imagingregadenosontemporal sampling

Identifiers

PMID33655444
PMCPMC9345838

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.