82Rb PET myocardial perfusion imaging is superior to 99mTc-labelled agent SPECT in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 39, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1233-1239

  Flotats, Albert ^a,b   Bravo, Paco E ^a   Fukushima, Kenji ^a   Chaudhry, Muhammad A ^a   Merrill, Jennifer ^a   Bengel, Frank M ^a,c  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

^c HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

Author keywords

Attenuation correction; Coronary artery disease; Myocardial perfusion imaging; Positron emission tomography; Single photon emission computed tomography

Indexed keywords

RUBIDIUM 82; TECHNETIUM 99M; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; RUBIDIUM; TECHNETIUM COMPLEX;

ADULT; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HEART MUSCLE PERFUSION; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; MALE; MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; ISOTOPE LABELING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; SCINTISCANNING;

ADULT; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; ISOTOPE LABELING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION IMAGING; ORGANOTECHNETIUM COMPOUNDS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RUBIDIUM RADIOISOTOPES; TOMOGRAPHY, EMISSION-COMPUTED, SINGLE-PHOTON;

EID: 84865498209     PISSN: 16197070     EISSN: 16197089     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-012-2140-x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bengel FM, Higuchi T, Javadi MS, Lautamaki R. Cardiac positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1-15.
2. Beller GA, Bergmann SR. Myocardial perfusion imaging agents: SPECT and PET. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004;11:71-86. (Pubitemid 38219572)
3. Machac J. Cardiac positron emission tomography imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:17-36.
4. Di Carli MF, Hachamovitch R. New technology for noninvasive evaluation of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2007;115:1464-80. (Pubitemid 46648384)
5. Stewart RE, Schwaiger M, Molina E, Popma J, Gacioch GM, Kalus M. Comparison of rubidium-82 PET and thallium-201 SPECT imaging for detection of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1991;67:1303-10.
6. Go RT, Marwick TH, MacIntyre WJ, Saha GB, Neumann DR, Underwood DA, 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;31:1899-905.
7. Marwick TH, Go RT, MacIntyre WJ, Saha GB, Underwood DA. Myocardial perfusion imaging with positron emission tomography and single photon emission computed tomography: frequency and causes of disparate results. Eur Heart J. 1991;12:1064-9.
8. Henzlova MJ, Cerqueira MD, Hansen CL, Taillefer R, Yao SS. ASNC imaging guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures: stress protocols and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009. doi:10.1007/s12350-009-9062-4 . http://www.asnc.org/ imageuploads/Imaging GuidelinesStressProtocols021109.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2012.
9. Goetze S, Brown T, Lavely WC, Zhang Z, Bengel FM. Attenuation correction in myocardial perfusion SPECT/CT: effects of misregistration and value of reregistration. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1090-95. (Pubitemid 47052647)
10. Brown TL, Merrill J, Volokh L, Bengel FM. Determinants of the response of left ventricular ejection fraction to vasodilator stress in electrocardiographically gated (82)rubidium myocardial perfusion PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:336-42.
11. Lautamaki R, Brown TL, Merrill J, Bengel FM. CT-based attenuation correction in 82Rb-myocardial perfusion PET-CT: incidence of misalignment and effect on regional tracer distribution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:305-10.
12. Bravo PE, Chien D, Javadi M, Merrill J, Bengel FM. Reference ranges for LVEF and LV volumes from electrocardiographically gated 82Rb cardiac PET/CT using commercially available software. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:898-905.
13. Berman DS, Kang X, Gransar H, Gerlach J, Friedman JD, Hayes SW, et al. Quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion abnormality on SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging is more reproducible than expert visual analysis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:45-53.
14. Hendel RC, Wackers FJ, Berman DS, Ficaro E, DePuey EG, Klein L, et al. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Consensus Statement: Reporting of Radionuclide Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Studies. J Nucl Cardiol. 2003;10:705-8. (Pubitemid 38035409)
15. Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, Jacobs AK, Kaul S, Laskey WK, et al. Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2002;105:539-42. (Pubitemid 34262671)
16. Holly TA, Abbott BG, Al-Mallah M, Calnon DA, Cohen MC, DiFilippo FP, et al. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. Single photon-emission computed tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:941-73.
17. Bateman TM, Heller GV, McGhie AI, Friedman JD, Case JA, Bryngelson JR, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of rest/stress ECGgated Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET: comparison with ECG-gated Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13:24-33. (Pubitemid 43192726)
18. Fricke E, Fricke H, Weise R, Kammeier A, Hagedorn R, Lotz N, et al. Attenuation correction of myocardial SPECT perfusion images with low-dose CT: evaluation of the method by comparison with perfusion PET. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:736-44.
19. Jain M, Nkonde C, Lin BA, Walker A, Wackers FJ. 85% of maximal age-predicted heart rate is not a valid endpoint for exercise treadmill testing. J Nucl Cardiol. 2011;18:1026-35.
20. Bateman TM. Advantages and disadvantages of PET and SPECT in a busy clinical practice. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:S3-S11.
21. Burrell S, MacDonald A. Artifacts and pitfalls in myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med Technol. 2006;34:193-211. (Pubitemid 47549608)
22. Narayanan MV, King MA, Pretorius PH, Dahlberg ST, Spencer F, Simon E, et al. Human-observer receiver-operating-characteristic evaluation of attenuation, scatter, and resolution compensation strategies for (99m)Tc myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1725-34. (Pubitemid 39663302)
23. Pitman AG, Kalff V, Van Every B, Risa B, Barnden LR, Kelly MJ. Contributions of subdiaphragmatic activity, attenuation, and diaphragmatic motion to inferior wall artifact in attenuationcorrected Tc-99m myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2005;12:401-9. (Pubitemid 41093757)
24. Garcia EV. Physical attributes, limitations, and future potential for PET and SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:S19-29.
25. Zaidi H, Koral KF. Scatter modelling and compensation in emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:761-82. (Pubitemid 38647918)