Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 15, 2026

Investigating the Pathogenesis of MYH7 Mutation Gly823Glu in Familial Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy using a Mouse Model
Published on: August 8, 2022
Comparison of two software systems for quantification of myocardial blood flow in patients with hypertrophic
Hulya Yalcin1, Ines Valenta2, Min Zhao2,3
1Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Center of Excellence, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Insights
Software for quantifying myocardial blood flow (MBF) in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) patients shows lower agreement between PMod and QPET. These MBF/MFR results indicate the softwares are not interchangeable for HCM analysis.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular imaging
- Nuclear cardiology
- Medical physics
Background:
- Myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification using positron emission tomography (PET) is crucial for diagnosing angina in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).
- Existing MBF quantification software has primarily been validated in patients with normal cardiac anatomy, not in HCM patients who exhibit unique cardiac features like hyperdynamic left ventricular (LV) function and LV outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction.
- Software performance evaluation in HCM is essential due to their distinct cardiac geometry and potential for LVOT obstruction.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) quantification results between PMod and FDA-approved QPET software in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).
- To assess the agreement of MBF and MFR values derived from PMod (manual segmentation) and QPET (automated segmentation) in HCM patients with specific cardiac characteristics.
Main Methods:
- 13N-ammonia PET perfusion data were acquired at rest and during vasodilation in 76 HCM patients and 10 non-HCM controls.
- MBF and MFR were calculated using both PMod and QPET software, with data resampled into static, ECG-gated, and dynamic formats.
- Analysis included global and regional MBF/MFR values, with a focus on the impact of spillover fractions on software agreement.
Main Results:
- PMod demonstrated significantly higher global and regional stress-MBF and MFR values compared to QPET in HCM patients.
- Fair correlations were observed for global rest-MBF, stress-MBF, and MFR between PMod and QPET in HCM patients (r values ranging from 0.66 to 0.78).
- Excluding HCM patients with high spillover fractions (>0.65) improved agreement between the softwares for MBF and MFR (r values up to 0.84). Non-HCM patients showed excellent agreement after exclusion.
Conclusions:
- Anatomic characteristics specific to HCM hearts, such as asymmetric septal hypertrophy and LVOT obstruction, contribute to lower correlations between MBF/MFR values obtained by PMod and QPET.
- The observed differences in quantification highlight that PMod and QPET software are not interchangeable for MBF/MFR analyses in HCM patients.
- Further validation and potential algorithm adjustments may be needed for accurate MBF/MFR quantification in HCM using PET imaging software.
Backgorund:
Quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) by positron emission tomography (PET) is important for investigation of angina in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Several software programs exist for MBF quantification, but they have been mostly evaluated in patients (with normal cardiac geometry), referred for evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD). Software performance has not been evaluated in HCM patients who frequently have hyperdynamic LV function, LV outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, small LV cavity size, and variation in the degree/location of LV hypertrophy.
Aim:
We compared results of MBF obtained using PMod, which permits manual segmentation, to those obtained by FDA-approved QPET software which has an automated segmentation algorithm.
Methods:
13N-ammonia PET perfusion data were acquired in list mode at rest and during pharmacologic vasodilation, in 76 HCM patients and 10 non-HCM patients referred for evaluation of CAD (CAD group.) Data were resampled to create static, ECG-gated and 36-frame-dynamic images. Myocardial flow reserve (MFR) and MBF (in ml/min/g) were calculated using QPET and PMod softwares.
Results:
All HCM patients had asymmetric septal hypertrophy, and 50% had evidence of LVOT obstruction, whereas non-HCM patients (CAD group) had normal wall thickness and ejection fraction. PMod yielded significantly higher values for global and regional stress-MBF and MFR than for QPET in HCM. Reasonably fair correlation was observed for global rest-MBF, stress-MBF, and MFR using these two softwares (rest-MBF: r = 0.78; stress-MBF: r = 0.66.; MFR: r = 0.7) in HCM patients. Agreement between global MBF and MFR values improved when HCM patients with high spillover fractions (> 0.65) were excluded from the analysis (rest-MBF: r = 0.84; stress-MBF: r = 0.72; MFR: r = 0.8.) Regionally, the highest agreement between PMod and QPET was observed in the LAD territory (rest-MBF: r = 0.82, Stress-MBF: r = 0.68) where spillover fraction was the lowest. Unlike HCM patients, the non-HCM patients (CAD group) demonstrated excellent agreement in MBF/MFR values, obtained by the two softwares, when patients with high spillover fractions were excluded (rest-MBF: r = 0.95; stress-MBF: r = 0.92; MFR: r = 0.95).
Conclusions:
Anatomic characteristics specific to HCM hearts contribute to lower correlations between MBF/MFR values obtained by PMod and QPET, compared with non-HCM patients. These differences indicate that PMod and QPET cannot be used interchangeably for MBF/MFR analyses in HCM patients.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiomyopathy III: Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Blood Flow
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Cardiomyopathy IV: Restrictive Cardiomyopathy
Autoregulation of Blood Flow
Chemical Signaling in Autoregulation
Chemical signaling operates at the precapillary sphincter level, inciting either contraction or relaxation....
Applications of Integration to Find Blood Flow

