ORIGINAL ARTICLE Compared vulnerabilities to small cardiac motions between different cameras used for myocardial perfusion imaging Julien Salvadori, PhD, a Yolande Petegnief, PhD, b Remi Sabbah, MD, b Olivier Morel, MD, b Hatem Boulahdour, MD, PhD, b Gilles Karcher, MD, PhD, c,d Pierre-Yves Marie, MD, PhD, c,d,e and Laetitia Imbert, PhD a,c,f,g a Institut de Cance ´rologie de Lorraine, Universite ´ de Lorraine, Nancy, France b CHU-Besanc¸on,Universite ´ de Franche-Comte ´, Service de Me ´decine Nucle ´aire, Besanc¸on, France c CHRU-Nancy, Universite ´ de Lorraine, Plateforme Nancyclotep, Nancy, France d Me ´decine Nucle ´aire, Ho ˆpital de Brabois, CHRU-Nancy, Universite ´ de Lorraine, Service de Me ´decine Nucle ´aire, Nancy, France e Universite ´ de Lorraine, INSERM, UMR-1116 DCAC, Nancy, France f Universite ´ de Lorraine, INSERM, UMR-947 IADI, Nancy, France g Me ´decine Nucle ´aire, Ho ˆpital de Brabois, CHRU-Nancy, Nancy, Vandœuvre-le `s-Nancy, France Received Oct 10, 2017; accepted Dec 8, 2017 doi:10.1007/s12350-017-1175-6 This phantom-based study was aimed to determine whether cardiac CZT-cameras, which provide an enhanced spatial resolution and image contrast compared to Anger cameras, are similarly affected by small cardiac motions. Translations of a left ventricular (LV) insert at half-SPECT acquisitions through six possible orthogonal directions and with 5- or 10-mm amplitude were simulated on the Discovery NM-530c and DSPECT CZT-cameras and on an Anger Symbia T2 camera equipped with an astigmatic (IQ.SPECT) or conventional parallel- hole collimator (Conv.SPECT). SPECT images were initially reconstructed as currently rec- ommended for clinical routine. The heterogeneity in recorded activity from the 17 LV segments gradually increased between baseline and motions simulated at 5- and 10-mm amplitudes with all cameras, although being higher for Anger- than CZT-cameras at each step and resulting in a higher mean number of artifactual abnormal segments (at 10-mm amplitude, Conv.SPECT: 3.7; IQ.SPECT: 1.8, Discovery: 0.7, DSPECT: 0). However, this vulnerability to motion was markedly (1) decreased for Conv.SPECT reconstructed without the recommended Resolution Recovery algorithm and (2) increased for DSPECT reconstructed without the recommended cardiac model. CZT-cameras and especially the DSPECT appear less vulnerable to small cardiac motions than Anger-cameras although these differences are strongly dependent on reconstruction parameters. (J Nucl Cardiol 2018) Key Words: CZT-cameras Æ anger-cameras Æ myocardial perfusion imaging Æ patient motions Æ artifacts Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-017-1175-6) contains sup- plementary material, which is available to authorized users. The authors of this article have provided a PowerPoint file, available for download at Springer Link, which summarises the contents of the paper and is free for re-use at meetings and presentations. Search for the article DOI on SpringerLink.com. Reprint requests: Laetitia Imbert, PhD, Me ´decine Nucle ´aire, Ho ˆ pital de Brabois, Alle ´e du Morvan, 54500, Nancy, Vandœuvre-le ´s-Nancy, France; l.imbert@chru-nancy.fr 1071-3581/$34.00 Copyright Ó 2018 American Society of Nuclear Cardiology.