Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 709-718

  Cerqueira, Manuel D ^a   Allman, Kevin C ^b   Ficaro, Edward P ^c   Hansen, Christopher L ^d   Nichols, Kenneth J ^e   Thompson, Randall C ^f   Van Decker, William A ^g   Yakovlevitch, Marko ^h  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^d THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e LONG ISLAND JEWISH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f Mid America Heart Institute   (United States)

^g TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^h Summit Cardiology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMMONIA N 13; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; METHOXY ISOBUTYL ISONITRILE TECHNETIUM TC 99M; RUBIDIUM 82; TETROFOSMIN TC 99M; THALLIUM 201; WATER O 15;

COLLIMATOR; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HEART MUSCLE ISCHEMIA; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION IMAGING; PATIENT SELECTION; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION ATTENUATION; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; REVIEW; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY;

BODY BURDEN; HUMANS; MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION IMAGING; PATIENT SELECTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION INJURIES; RADIATION PROTECTION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77956358748     PISSN: 10713581     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12350-010-9244-0     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Berman DS, Hachamovitch R, Kiat H, et al. Incremental value of prognostic testing in patients with known or suspected ischemic heart disease: A basis for optimal utilization of exercise technetium-99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;26:639-47.
2. Giri S, Shaw LJ, Murthy DR, et al. Impact of diabetes on the risk stratification using stress single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease. Circulation 2002;105:32-40.
3. Iskandrian AS, Chae SC, Heo J, et al. Independent and incremental prognostic value of exercise single-photon emission computed tomographic (SPECT) thallium imaging in coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;22:665-70. (Pubitemid 23256923)
4. Beller GA. Importance of consideration of radiation doses from cardiac imaging procedures and risks of cancer. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:1-3.
5. Cohen MC. Radiation reduction: How long can you go? J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17. doi:10.1007/s12350-010-9212-8.
6. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Definitions.10CFR § 20.1003. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1003. html. Revised December 1, 2009. Effective May 21, 1991. Accessed April 1, 2010.
7. Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF, et al. 2009 appopriate use criteria for cardiac radionuclide imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:2201-29.
8. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.
9. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement. Comparative carcinogenicity of ionizing radiation and chemicals. Report No. 096. Washington, DC: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, 1989.
10. Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 2007;116:1290-305.
11. Ward RP, Al-Mallah MH, Grossman GB. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology review of the ACCF/ASNC appropriateness criteria for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI). J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14: e26-38.
12. Henzlova MJ, Cerqueira MD, Hansen CL, Taillefer R, Yao S. Imaging guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures: Stress protocols and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16. doi:10.1007/s12350-009-9062-4.
13. Hansen CL, Goldstein RA, Akinboboye OO, et al. Imaging guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures: Myocardial perfusion and function: Single photon emission computed tomography. J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14: e39-60.
14. Dilsizian V, Bacharach SL, Beanlands RS, Bergmann SR, Delbeke D, Gropler RJ, et al. Imaging guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures: PET myocardial perfusion and metabolism clinical imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16. doi:10.1007/s12350-009-9094-9.
15. Gibson PB, Demus D, Noto R, Hudson W, Johnson LL. Low event rate for stress-only perfusion imaging in patients evaluated for chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:999-1004.
16. Santana CA, Garcia EV, Vansant JP, et al. Gated stress-only 99mTc myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging accurately assesses coronary artery disease. Nucl Med Commun 2003;24:241-9.
17. Heller GV, Bateman TM, Johnson LL, et al. Clinical value of attenuation correction in stress-only Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2004;11:273-81.
18. Bateman T, Heller GV, McGhie AI, et al. Multicenter investigation comparing a highly efficient half-time stress-only attenuation correction approach against standard rest-stress Tc-99m SPECT imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:726-35.
19. Chang SM, Nabi F, Xu J, Raza U, Mahmarian JJ. Normal stressonly versus standard stress/rest myocardial perfusion imaging: Similar patient mortality with reduced radiation exposure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:221-30.
20. Bateman TM, Friedman JD, Heller GV, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of rest/stress ECG-gated Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET: Comparison with ECG-gated Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 2006;13:24-33.
21. Berman DS, Kang X, Tamarappoo B, et al. Stress thallium-201/rest technetium-99m sequential dual isotope high-speed myocardial perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol Imaging 2009;2:273-82.
22. Chang H, George RT, Schuleri KH, et al. Prospective electrocardiogram- gated delayed enhanced multidetector computed tomography accurately quantifies infarct size and reduces radiation exposure. J Am Coll Cardiol Imaging 2009;2:412-20.
23. Hansen C. Digital image processing for clinicians, part III: SPECT reconstruction. J Nucl Cardiol 2002;9:542-9.
24. Kak A, Slaney M. Algorithms for reconstruction with nondiffracting sources. In: Kak A, Slaney M, editors. Principals of computerized tomographic imaging. New York: IEEE; 1999.
25. DePuey EG, Gadiraju R, Clark J, et al. Ordered subset expectation maximization and wide beam reconstruction "half-time" gated myocardial perfusion SPECT functional imaging: A comparison to "full-time" filtered backprojection. J Nucl Cardiol 2008;14:547-63.
26. DePuey EG, Bommireddipalli S, Clark J, Thompson L, Srour Y. Wide beam reconstruction "quarter-time" gated myocardial perfusion SPECT functional imaging: A comparison to "full-time" ordered subset expectation maximum. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:736-52.
27. Venero CV, Heller GV, Bateman TM, et al. A multicenter evaluation of a new postprocessing method with depth-dependent collimator resolution applied to full-time and half-time acquisitions without and with simultaneously acquired attenuation correction. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:714-25.
28. Cherry SR, Sorenson JA, Phelps ME. Physics in nuclear medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Science; 2003.
29. He X, Links JM, Gilland KL, Tsui BMW, Frey EC. Comparison of 180° and 360° acquisition for myocardial perfusion SPECT with compensation for attenuation, detector response, and scatter: Monte Carlo and mathematical observer results. J Nucl Cardiol 2006;13:345-53.
30. Slomka PJ, Patton JA, Berman DS, Germano G. Advances in technical aspects of myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:255-76.
31. Garcia EV, Tsukerman L, Keidar Z. A new solid state, ultra fast cardiac multi-detector SPECT system [abstract]. J Nucl Cardiol 2008;15: S3.
32. Kennedy JA, Yosilevsky G, Przewloka K, Israel O, Frenkel A. 3D spatial resolution map and sensitivity characterization of a dedicated cardiac CZT SPECT camera [abstract]. J Nucl Med 2009;50:107P.
33. Gambhir SS, Berman DS, Ziffer JA, et al. A novel high-sensitivity rapid-acquisition single-photon cardiac imaging camera. J Nucl Med 2009;50:635-43.
34. Marie PY, Djaballah W, Franken PR, et al. OSEM reconstruction, associated with temporal Fourier and depth-dependant resolution recovery filtering, enhances results from sestamibi and 201Tl 16-interval gated SPECT. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1789-95.
35. Sharir T, Slomka PJ, Hayes S, et al. Multicenter trial of high-speed versus conventional single-photon emission computed tomography imaging: Quantitative results of myocardial perfusion and left ventricular function. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:1965-74.
36. Ben-Haim S, Van Gramberg D, Bomanji J, et al. Thallium 201 (Tl) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) with a novel fast cardiac camera versus conventional camera (SPECT) [abstract]. J Nucl Med 2009;50:124P.
37. Keidar Z, Kagna O, Frenkel A, Israel O. A novel ultrafast cardiac scanner for myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI): Comparison with a standard dual-head camera [abstract]. J Nucl Med 2009;50:125P.
38. Esteves FP, Raggi P, Folks RD, et al. Novel solid-state-detector dedicated cardiac camera for fast myocardial perfusion imaging: Multicenter comparison with standard dual detector cameras. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:927-34.
39. Sharir T, Ben-Haim S, Merzon K, et al. High-speed myocardial perfusion imaging initial clinical comparison with conventional dual detector anger camera imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol Imaging 2008;1:156-63.
40. Maddahi J, Mendez R, Mahmarian JJ, et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of rapid, gated SPECT myocardial perfusion upright imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:351-7.
41. Daou D, Pointurier I, Coaguila C, et al. Performance of OSEM and depth-dependent resolution recovery algorithms for the evaluation of global left ventricular function in 201Tl gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med 2003;44:155-62.
42. Bowsher JE, Floyd CE. Treatment of Compton scattering in maximum likelihood, expectation-maximization reconstructions of SPECT images. J Nucl Med 1991;32:1285-91.
43. Xaio J, de Wit TC, Staelen SG, Beekman FJ. Evaluation of 3D Monte Carlo-based scatter correction for 99mTc cardiac perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med 2006;47:1662-9.
44. Cao ZJ, Maunouroy C, Chen CC, et al. Comparison of continuous step-and-shoot versus step-and-shoot acquisition SPECT. J Nucl Med 1996;37:2037-40.
45. Bieszk JA, Hawman EG. Evaluation of SPECT angular sampling effects: Continuous versus step-and-shoot acquisition. J Nucl Med 1987;28:1308-14.
46. Case J, Bateman T, Cullom S. Obtaining optimum and consistent SPEW myocardial counts using an anterior planar view to determine SPECT acquisition times [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;31:82A.