Rubidium-82 cardiac positron emission tomography imaging: An overview for the general cardiologist

Cardiology in Review

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 255-263

  Dhar, Ritesh ^a   Ananthasubramaniam, Karthikeyan ^a  

^a HENRY FORD HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

coronary artery disease; myocardial viability; positron emission tomography; Rubidium 82; sarcoidosis

Indexed keywords

ADENOSINE; DIPYRIDAMOLE; DOBUTAMINE; ERYTHROCYTE TC 99M; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; NITROGEN 13; OXYGEN 15; RUBIDIUM 82; TECHNETIUM 99M; THALLIUM 201;

CARDIOLOGIST; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HEART MUSCLE METABOLISM; HEART MUSCLE PERFUSION; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MYOCARDIAL DISEASE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROGNOSIS; RADIATION DOSE; REVIEW;

CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; HEART; HUMANS; MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION IMAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RUBIDIUM RADIOISOTOPES; SARCOIDOSIS; TISSUE SURVIVAL;

EID: 80051726274     PISSN: 10615377     EISSN: 15384683     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/CRD.0b013e318224253e     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Beller GA, Bergmann SR. Myocardial perfusion imaging agents: SPECT and PET. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004;11:71-86. (Pubitemid 38219572)
2. Schindler TH, Schelbert HR, Quercioli A, et al. Cardiac PET imaging for the detection and monitoring of coronary artery disease and microvascular health. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:623-640.
3. Levin CS, Hoffman EJ. Calculation of positron range and its effect on the fundamental limit of positron emission tomography system spatial resolution. Phys Med Biol. 1999;44:781-799. (Pubitemid 29133069)
4. Dilsizian V, Pohost G: Cardiac CT, PET, and MRI. 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
5. Gould KL, Pan T, Loghin C, et al. Frequent diagnostic errors in cardiac PET/CT due to misregistration of CT attenuation and emission PET images: a definitive analysis of causes, consequences, and corrections. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1112-1121. (Pubitemid 47052651)
6. Di Carli M, Lipton M. Cardiac PET and PET/CT Imaging. New York, NY: Springer; 2007.
7. Kim S, Machac J, Almeida O. Optimization of rubidium-82 generator performance. Clin Nucl Med. 2004;29:135.
8. ICRP. Radionuclide Transformations. New York, NY: Pergamon Press; 1983.
9. Becker L, Ferreira R, Thomas M. Comparison of 86Rb and microsphere estimates of left ventricular bloodflow distribution. J Nucl Med. 1974;15:969-973.
10. Schelbert HR, Ashburn WL, Chauncey DM, et al. Comparative myocardial uptake of intravenously administered radionuclides. J Nucl Med. 1974;15:1092-1100.
11. Glover DK. Journey to find the ideal PET flow tracer for clinical use: are we there yet? J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:765-768. (Pubitemid 350082590)
12. Selwyn A, Allan R, L'Abbate A. Relation between regional myocardial uptake of rubidium-82 and perfusion: absolute cation uptake in ischemia. Am J Cardiol. 1982;50:112-121. (Pubitemid 12059373)
13. Dilsizian V, Bacharach SL, Beanlands R, et al. ASNC Imaging guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures: PET myocardial perfusion and metabolism clinical imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16.
14. Lalonde L, Ziadi MC, Beanlands R. Cardiac positron emission tomography: current clinical practice. Cardiol Clin. 2009;27:237-255.
15. Machac J, Bacharach SL, Bateman TM, et al. Positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion and glucose metabolism imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13:e121-e151. (Pubitemid 44913647)
16. Chow BJ, Ananthasubramaniam K, deKemp RA, et al. Comparison of treadmill exercise versus dipyridamole stress with myocardial perfusion imaging using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1227-1234. (Pubitemid 40523142)
17. Al Jaroudi W, Iskandrian AE. Regadenoson: a new myocardial stress agent. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1123-1130.
18. Dorbala S, Limaye A, Sampson U. Optimal timing of transmission map for rubidium 82 stress positron emmission tomography (PET/CT) myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 2005;46.
19. Hage FG, Heo J, Franks B, et al. Differences in heart rate response to adenosine and regadenoson in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Am Heart J. 2009;157:771-776.
20. Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, et al. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation. 2007;116:1290-1305. (Pubitemid 47517541)
21. Al-Mallah MH, Sitek A, Moore SC, et al. Assessment of myocardial perfusion and function with PET and PET/CT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:498-513.
22. Gerber TC, Carr JJ, Arai AE, et al. Ionizing radiation in cardiac imaging: a science advisory from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention. Circulation. 2009;119:1056-1065.
23. Parkash R, deKemp RA, Ruddy TD, et al. Potential utility of rubidium 82 PET quantification in patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004;11:440-449. (Pubitemid 39115288)
24. Di Carli MF, Hachamovitch R. New technology for noninvasive evaluation of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2007;115:1464-1480. (Pubitemid 46648384)
25. Sampson UK, Dorbala S, Limaye A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion imaging with hybrid positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:1052-1058. (Pubitemid 46349498)
26. Bateman TM, Heller GV, McGhie AL, 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. (Pubitemid 43192726)
27. Marwick TH, Nemec JJ, Stewart WJ, et al. Diagnosis of coronary artery disease using exercise echocardiography and positron emission tomography: comparison and analysis of discrepant results. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1992;5:231-238.
28. Grover-McKay M, Ratib O, Schwaiger M, et al. Detection of coronary artery disease with positron emission tomography and rubidium 82. Am Heart J. 1992;123:646-652.
29. Stewart RE, Schwaiger M, Molina E, et al. Comparison of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography and thallium-201 SPECT imaging for detection of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1991;67:1303-1310.
30. Go RT, Marwick TH, MacIntyre WJ, et al. A prospective comparison of rubidium-82 PET and thallium-201 SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging utilizing a single dipyridamole stress in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med. 1990;31:1899-1905.
31. Demer LL, Gould KL, Goldstein RA, et al. Assessment of coronary artery disease severity by positron emission tomography. Comparison with quantitative arteriography in 193 patients. Circulation. 1989;79:825-835. (Pubitemid 19100542)
32. Gould KL, Goldstein RA, Mullani NA, et al. Noninvasive assessment of coronary stenoses by myocardial perfusion imaging during pharmacologic coronary vasodilation. VIII. Clinical feasibility of positron cardiac imaging without a cyclotron using generator-produced rubidium-82. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986;7:775-789. (Pubitemid 16107121)
33. Di Carli MF, Dorbala S, Meserve J, et al. Clinical myocardial perfusion PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:783-793. (Pubitemid 47604980)
34. Dorbala S, Vangala D, Sampson U, et al. Value of vasodilator left ventricular ejection fraction reserve in evaluating the magnitude of myocardium at risk and the extent of angiographic coronary artery disease: a 82Rb PET/CT study. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:349-358. (Pubitemid 47604916)
35. Chahal H, Fukushima K, Godoy G. Rubidium-82 lung uptake in cardiac PET/CT - Is there a clinical value? J Nucl Med. 2010;51(supplement):1712.
36. Shi H, Santana CA, Rivero A, et al. Normal values and prospective validation of transient ischaemic dilation index in 82Rb PET myocardial perfusion imaging. Nucl Med Commun. 2007;28:859-863. (Pubitemid 47494111)
37. Lin JW, Sciacca RR, Chou RL, et al. Quantification of myocardial perfusion in human subjects using 82Rb and wavelet-based noise reduction. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:201-208. (Pubitemid 32150509)
38. El Fakhri G, Sitek A, Guerin B, et al. Quantitative dynamic cardiac 82Rb PET using generalized factor and compartment analyses. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1264-1271. (Pubitemid 43733474)
39. Marwick TH, Shan K, Patel S, et al. Incremental value of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography for prognostic assessment of known or suspected coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1997;80:865-870. (Pubitemid 27459159)
40. Dorbala S, Hachamovitch R, Curillova Z, et al. Incremental prognostic value of gated Rb-82 positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging over clinical variables and rest LVEF. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:846-854.
41. Chow BJ, Wong JW, Yoshinaga K, et al. Prognostic significance of dipyridamole-induced ST depression in patients with normal 82Rb PET myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1095-1101. (Pubitemid 43741070)
42. Klodas E, Miller TD, Christian TF, et al. Prognostic significance of ischemic electrocardiographic changes during vasodilator stress testing in patients with normal SPECT images. J Nucl Cardiol. 2003;10:4-8. (Pubitemid 36335846)
43. Schenker MP, Dorbala S, Hong EC, et al. Interrelation of coronary calcification, myocardial ischemia, and outcomes in patients with intermediate likelihood of coronary artery disease: a combined positron emission tomography/computed tomography study. Circulation. 2008;117:1693-1700. (Pubitemid 351482594)
44. Schinkel AF, Bax JJ, Poldermans D, et al. Hibernation myocardium: diagnosis and patient outcomes. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2007;32:375-410. (Pubitemid 46881171)
45. Di Carli MF, Asgarzadie F, Schelbert HR, et al. Quantitative relation between myocardial viability and improvement in heart failure symptoms after revascularization in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 1995;92:3436-3444.
46. Beanlands RS, Ruddy TD, deKemp RA, et al. Positron emission tomography and recovery following revascularization (PARR-1): the importance of scar and the development of a prediction rule for the degree of recovery of left ventricular function. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1735-1743. (Pubitemid 35341950)
47. Klein C, Nekolla SG, Bengel FM, et al. Assessment of myocardial viability with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with positron emission tomography. Circulation. 2002;105:162-167. (Pubitemid 34084313)
48. Roes SD, Kaandorp TA, Marsan NA, et al. Agreement and disagreement between contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and nuclear imaging for assessment of myocardial viability. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:594-601.
49. Kaandorp TA, Bax JJ, Schuijf JD, et al. Head-to-head comparison between contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and dobutamine magnetic resonance imaging in men with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol. 2004;93:1461-1464. (Pubitemid 38749199)
50. Beanlands RS, Nichol G, Huszti E, et al. F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging-assisted management of patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and suspected coronary disease: a randomized, controlled trial (PARR-2). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:2002-2012. (Pubitemid 350054917)
51. Abraham A, Nichol G, Williams KA, et al. 18F-FDG PET imaging of myocardial viability in an experienced center with access to 18F-FDG and integration with clinical management teams: the Ottawa-FIVE substudy of the PARR 2 trial. J Nucl Med. 2010;54:567-574.
52. Ishimaru S, Tsujino I, Takei T, et al. Focal uptake on 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography images indicates cardiac involvement of sarcoidosis. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:1538-1543. (Pubitemid 41373496)
53. Ohira H, Tsujino I, Ishimaru S, et al. Myocardial imaging with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in sarcoidosis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:933-941.
54. Yamagishi H, Shirai N, Takagi M, et al. Identification of cardiac sarcoidosis with (13) N-NH (3)/(18) F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1030-1036. (Pubitemid 39663376)