18F-FDG PET for detecting myocardial viability: Validation of 3D data acquisition

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 19-24

  Brogsitter, Claudia ^a,b   Güning, Thomas ^c   Weise, Reiner ^a   Wielepp, Peter ^a   Lindner, Oliver ^a   Körfer, Reiner ^a   Burchert, Wolfgang ^a  

^a RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

^b DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^c DERRIFORD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

3 dimensional data acquisition; 18F FDG; Coronary heart disease; Myocardial viability; PET

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEART FUNCTION; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE EJECTION FRACTION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; VALIDATION PROCESS; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CORONARY ARTERY ATHEROSCLEROSIS; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE FUNCTION; HEART VENTRICLE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCINTISCANNING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VALIDATION STUDY;

CORONARY ARTERIOSCLEROSIS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HEART VENTRICLES; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VENTRICULAR DYSFUNCTION, LEFT;

EID: 15044362814     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Tillisch J, Brunken R, Marshall R, et al. Reversibility of cardiac wall-motion abnormalities predicted by positron tomography. N Engl J Med. 1986;314:884-888.
2. Haas F, Haehnel CJ, Picker W, et al. Preoperative positron emission tomographic viability assessment and perioperative and postoperative risk in patients with advanced ischemic heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;30:1693-1700.
3. 18F]FDG to the assessment of myocardial viability. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 1999;40:363-372.
4. Pagano D, Townend JN, Littler WA, Horton R, Camici PG, Bonser RS. Coronary artery bypass surgery as treatment for ischemic heart failure: the predictive value of viability assessment with quantitative positron emission tomography for symptomatic and functional outcome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;115:791-799.
5. Rohatgi R, Epstein S, Henriquez J, et al. Utility of positron emission tomography in predicting cardiac events and survival in patients with coronary artery disease and severe left ventricular dysfunction. Am J Cardiol. 2001;87:1096-1099.
6. Knuesel PR, Nanz D, Wyss C, et al. Characterization of dysfunctional myocardium by positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance: relation to functional outcome after revascularization. Circulation. 2003;108:1095-1100.
7. Willemsen AT, Siebelink HJ, Blanksma PK, Paans AM. Automated ejection fraction determination from gated myocardial FDG-PET data. J Nucl Cardiol. 1999;6:577-582.
8. Saab G, deKemp RA, Ukkonen H, Ruddy TD, Germano G, Beanlands RSB. Gated fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: determination of global and regional left ventricular fraction and myocardial tissue characterization. J Nucl Cardiol. 2003;10:297-303.
9. Cherry SR, Dahlbom M, Hoffman EJ. 3D PET using a conventional multislice tomograph without septa. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1991;15:655-668.
10. Lartizien C, Comtat C, Kinahan PE, Ferreira N, Bendriem B, Trebossen R. Optimization of injected dose based on noise equivalent count rates for 2- and 3-dimensional whole-body PET. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1268-1278.
11. Watson CC. New, faster, image-based scatter correction for 3D PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2000;47:1587-1594.
12. Schaefer WM, Lipke CS, Nowak B, et al. Validation of an evaluation routine for left ventricular volumes, ejection fraction and wall motion from gated cardiac FDG PET: a comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:545-553.
13. Newcombe RG. Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods. Stat Med. 1998;17:873-890. Calculator available at: http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/prop2_ind.html. Accessed November 2, 2004.
14. Wienhard K, Dahlbom M, Eriksson L, et al. The ECAT EXACT HR: performance of a new high resolution positron scanner. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1994;18:110-118.
15. Alderman EL, Fisher LD, Litwin P, et al. Results of coronary artery surgery in patients with poor left ventricular function (CASS). Circulation. 1983;68:785-795.
16. Passamani E, Davis KB, Gillespie MJ, Killip T. A randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery: survival of patients with a low ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:1665-1671.
17. Marwick TH, Zuchowski C, Lauer MS, Secknus MA, Williams J, Lytle BW. Functional status and quality of life in patients with heart failure undergoing coronary bypass surgery after assessment of myocardial viability. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:750-758.
18. Bourque JM, Velazquez EJ, Borges-Neto S, Shaw LK, Whellan DJ, O'Connor CM. Radionuclide viability testing: should it affect treatment strategy in patients with cardiomyopathy and significant coronary artery disease? Am Heart J. 2003;145:758-767.
19. Schelben HR, Beanlands R, Bengel F, et al. PET myocardial perfusion and glucose metabolism imaging: part 2-guidelines for interpretation and reporting. J Nucl Cardiol. 2003;10:557-571.
20. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for assessing myocardial viability in patients with moderate versus severe left ventricular dysfunction. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82: 1001-1007.
21. Allman KC, Shaw LJ, Hachamovitch R, Udelson JE. Myocardial viability testing and impact of revascularization on prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:1151-1158.
22. 99mTc sestamibi nuclear imaging in patients with chronic myocardial infarction. Cardiology. 2002;98:202-209.
23. 15O and 3-dimensional PET: an experimental validation. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1031-1040.
24. 82Rb PET studies. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:701-706.
25. Badawi RD, Marsden PK, Cronin BF, Sutcliffe JL, Maisey MN. Optimization of noise-equivalent count rates in 3D PET. Phys Med Biol. 1996;41:1755-1776.
26. Bailey DL, Lee KS, Stocks G, Meikle SR, Dobko T. Clinical 3D PET for improved patient throughput [abstract]. J Nucl Med. 1993;34(suppl):184P.
27. 18F-FDG-PET to optimize recognition of myocardial hibernation. Nucl Med Commun. 1998;19:535-545.
28. Hattori N, Bengel FM, Mehilli J, et al. Global and regional functional measurements with gated FDG PET in comparison with left ventriculography. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:221-229.
29. 18F-FDG positron emission tomography, Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2002;18:363-372.
30. 18F-FDG after oral glucose loading [in German]. Nuklearmedizin. 2003;42:39-44.