Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Impact of pharmacological stress agent on patient motion during rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion PET/CT
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Impact of pharmacological stress agent on patient motion during rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion PET/CT
Do you wish to request the book?
Impact of pharmacological stress agent on patient motion during rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion PET/CT
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Impact of pharmacological stress agent on patient motion during rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion PET/CT
2018
Overview
Patient motion has been demonstrated to have a significant impact on the quality and accuracy of rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion PET/CT. This study aimed to investigate the effect on patient motion of two pharmacological stressing agents, adenosine and regadenoson.
Dynamic data were retrospectively analyzed in 90 patients undergoing adenosine (n = 30), incremental adenosine (n = 30), or regadenoson (n = 30) rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion PET/CT. Severity of motion was scored qualitatively using a four-point (0-3) scale and quantitatively using frame-to-frame pixel shifts. The type of motion, returning or non-returning, and the frame in which it occurred were also recorded. There were significant differences in both the qualitative and quantitative scores comparing regadenoson to adenosine (P = .025 and P < .001) and incremental adenosine (P = .014, P = .015), respectively. The difference in scores between adenosine and incremental adenosine was not significant. Where motion was present, significantly more adenosine patients were classed as non-returning (P = .018). The median frames for motion occurring were 12 for regadenoson and 14 for both adenosine cohorts.
The choice of stressing protocol impacts significantly on patient motion. Patients stressed with regadenoson have significantly lower motion scores than those stressed with adenosine, using local protocols. This motion is more likely to be associated with a drift of the heart away from a baseline position, coinciding with the termination of infusion.
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Springer US,Springer Nature B.V
