Myocardial perfusion imaging with PET

Imaging in Medicine

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 35-46

  Nakazato, Ryo ^a   Berman, Daniel S ^a,b   Alexanderson, Erick ^c,d   Slomka, Piotr ^b  

^a CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE CARDIOLOGÍA IGNACIO CHÁVEZ   (Mexico)

^d UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

Author keywords

3D; attenuation correction; myocardial blood flow; myocardial flow reserve; myocardial perfusion; quantification

Indexed keywords

AMMONIA N 13; FLURPIRIDAZ F 18; RUBIDIUM 82; WATER O 15;

COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HEART MUSCLE BLOOD FLOW; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; REVIEW; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY;

EID: 84874093904     PISSN: 17555191     EISSN: 17555205     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/iim.13.1     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Koepfli P, Hany TF, Wyss CA et al. CT attenuation correction for myocardial perfusion quantification using a PET/CT hybrid scanner. J. Nucl. Med. 45(4), 537-542 (2004).
2. Knuuti J, Kajander S, Mäki M, Ukkonen H. Quantification of myocardial blood flow will reform the detection of CAD. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 16(4), 497-506 (2009).
3. Berman DS, Maddahi J, Tamarappoo BK et al. Phase II safety and clinical comparison with single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of coronary artery disease: flurpiridaz F 18 positron emission tomography. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. pii: S0735-S1097(12), 05659-05668 (2012).
4. Maddahi J, Czernin J, Lazewatsky J et al. Phase I, first-in-human study of BMS747158, a novel F-18-labeled tracer for myocardial perfusion PET: dosimetry, biodistribution, safety and imaging characteristics after a single injection at rest. J. Nucl. Med. 52(9), 1490-1498 (2011).
5. Maddahi J. Properties of an ideal PET perfusion tracer: new PET tracer cases and data. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 19(Suppl. 1), S30-S37 (2012).
6. Nekolla SG, Reder S, Saraste A et al. Evaluation of the novel myocardial perfusion positron-emission tomography tracer 18F-BMS-747158-02: comparison to
7. Koepfli P, Hany TF, Wyss CA et al. CT attenuation correction for myocardial perfusion quantification using a PET/CT hybrid scanner. J. Nucl. Med. 45(4), 537-542 (2004).
8. Knuuti J, Kajander S, Mäki M, Ukkonen H. Quantification of myocardial blood flow will reform the detection of CAD. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 16(4), 497-506 (2009).
9. Berman DS, Maddahi J, Tamarappoo BK et al. Phase II safety and clinical comparison with single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of coronary artery disease: flurpiridaz F 18 positron emission tomography. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. pii: S0735-S1097(12), 05659-05668 (2012).
10. Maddahi J, Czernin J, Lazewatsky J et al. Phase I, first-in-human study of BMS747158, a novel F-18-labeled tracer for myocardial perfusion PET: dosimetry, biodistribution, safety and imaging characteristics after a single injection at rest. J. Nucl. Med. 52(9), 1490-1498 (2011).
11. Maddahi J. Properties of an ideal PET perfusion tracer: new PET tracer cases and data. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 19(Suppl. 1), S30-S37 (2012).
12. Nekolla SG, Reder S, Saraste A et al. Evaluation of the novel myocardial perfusion positron-emission tomography tracer 18F-BMS-747158-02: comparison to
13. Santana CA, Folks RD, Garcia EV et al. Quantitative (82)Rb PET/CT: development and validation of myocardial perfusion database. J. Nucl. Med. 48(7), 1122-1128 (2007).
14. Beanlands RS, Chow BJ, Dick A et al. CCS/ CAR/CANM/CNCS/CanSCMR joint position statement on advanced noninvasive cardiac imaging using positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and multidetector computed tomographic angiography in the diagnosis and evaluation of ischemic heart disease-executive summary. Can. J. Cardiol. 23(2), 107-119 (2007).
15. Klingensmith WC, Noonan C, Goldberg JH, Buchwald D, Kimball JT, Manson SM. Decreased perfusion in the lateral wall of the left ventricle in PET/CT studies with 13N-ammonia: evaluation in healthy adults. J. Nucl. Med. Technol. 37(4), 215-219 (2009).
16. Slomka PJ, Alexanderson E, Jácome R et al. Comparison of clinical tools for measurements of regional stress and rest myocardial blood flow assessed with 13N-ammonia PET/CT. J. Nucl. Med. 53(2), 171-181 (2012).
17. Klein R, Renaud JM, Ziadi MC et al. Intra-and inter-operator repeatability of myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve measurements using rubidium-82 PET and a highly automated analysis program. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 17(4), 600-616 (2010).
18. El Fakhri G, Kardan A, Sitek A et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of quantitative myocardial blood flow assessment with (82) Rb PET: comparison with (13)N-ammonia PET. J. Nucl. Med. 50(7), 1062-1071 (2009).
19. Kajander S, Joutsiniemi E, Saraste M et al. Cardiac positron emission tomography/ computed tomography imaging accurately detects anatomically and functionally significant coronary artery disease. Circulation 122(6), 603-613 (2010).
20. Dekemp RA, Slomka PJ, Dederck J et al. Reproducible imaging of myocardial flow reserve with rubidium-82 PET-a multi-centre multi-vendor comparison study. Eur. Heart J. Suppl. 13(Suppl. A), A76 (2011).
21. Beanlands RS, Ziadi MC, Williams K. Quantification of myocardial flow reserve using positron emission imaging the journey to clinical use. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 54(2), 157-159 (2009).
22. 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. 11(4), 440-449 (2004).
23. Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams K et al. Does quantification of myocardial freserve using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography facilitate detection of multivessel coronary artery disease? J. Nucl. Cardiol. 19(4), 670-680 (2012).
24. Hajjiri MM, Leavitt MB, Zheng H, Spooner AE, Fischman AJ, Gewirtz H. Comparison of positron emission tomography measurement of adenosine-stimulated absolute myocardial blood flow versus relative myocardial tracer content for physiological assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity and location. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2(6), 751-758 (2009).
25. Yoshinaga K, Katoh C, Manabe O et al. Incremental diagnostic value of regional myocardial blood flow quantification over relative perfusion imaging with generator-produced rubidium-82 PET. Circ. J. 75(11), 2628-2634 (2011).
26. Fiechter M, Ghadri JR, Gebhard C et al. Diagnostic value of 13N-ammonia myocardial perfusion PET: added value of myocardial flow reserve. J. Nucl. Med. 53(8), 1230-1234 (2012).
27. Herzog BA, Husmann L, Valenta I et al. Long-term prognostic value of 13N-ammonia myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography added value of coronary flow reserve. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 54(2), 150-156 (2009).
28. Fukushima K, Javadi MS, Higuchi T et al. Prediction of short-term cardiovascular events using quantification of global myocardial flow reserve in patients referred for clinical 82Rb PET perfusion imaging. J. Nucl. Med. 52(5), 726-732 (2011).
29. Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams KA et al. Impaired myocardial flow reserve on rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging predicts adverse outcomes in patients assessed for myocardial ischemia. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 58(7), 740-748 (2011).
30. Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR et al. Improved cardiac risk assessment with noninvasive measures of coronary flow reserve. Circulation 124(20), 2215-2224 (2011).
31. Hachamovitch R, Berman D, Shaw L et al. Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. Circulation 97(6), 535-543 (1998).
32. Schindler TH, Schelbert HR, Quercioli A, Dilsizian V. Cardiac PET imaging for the detection and monitoring of coronary artery disease and microvascular health. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 3(6), 623-640 (2010).
33. Greenland P, Bonow RO, Brundage BH et al. ACCF/AHA 2007 clinical expert consensus document on coronary artery calcium scoring by computed tomography in global cardiovascular risk assessment and in evaluation of patients with chest pain: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Clinical Expert Consensus Task Force (ACCF/AHA Writing Committee to Update the 2000 Expert Consensus Document on Electron Beam Computed Tomography) developed in collaboration with the Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 49(3), 378-402 (2007).
34. Schepis T, Gaemperli O, Koepfli P et al. Added value of coronary artery calcium score as an adjunct to gated SPECT for the evaluation of coronary artery disease in an intermediate-risk population. J. Nucl. Med. 48(9), 1424-1430 (2007).
35. 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 117(13), 1693-1700 (2008).
36. Slomka PJ, Berman DS, Germano G. Applications and software techniques for integrated cardiac multimodality imaging. Exp. Rev. Cardiovasc. Ther. 6(1), 27-41 (2008).
37. Gaemperli O, Bengel FM, Kaufmann PA. Cardiac hybrid imaging. Eur. Heart J. 32(17), 2100-2108 (2011).
38. Flotats A, Knuuti J, Gutberlet M et al. Hybrid cardiac imaging: SPECT/CT and PET/CT. A joint position statement by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), the European Society of Cardiac Radiology (ESCR) and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology (ECNC). Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 38(1), 201-212 (2011).
39. Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Appelman YE et al. Hybrid imaging using quantitative H215O PET and CT-based coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease. J. Nucl. Med. 54, 55-63 (2013).
40. Namdar M, Hany TF, Koepfli P et al. Integrated PET/CT for the assessment of coronary artery disease: A feasibility study. J. Nucl. Med. 46(6), 930-935 (2005).
41. Plass A, Emmert MY, Gaemperli O et al. The potential value of hybrid positron emission tomography/dual-source computed tomography imaging in coronary bypass surgery. Heart Surg. Forum 14(5), E283-E290 (2011).
42. Nakazato R, Dey D, Alexánderson E et al. Automatic alignment of myocardial perfusion PET and 64-slice coronary CT angiography on hybrid PET/CT. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 19(3), 482-491 (2012).
43. Bateman TM, Heller GV, Mcghie AI 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. 13(1), 24-33 (2006).
44. McArdle BA, Dowsley TF, Dekemp RA, Wells GA, Beanlands RS. Does rubidium-82 PET have superior accuracy to SPECT perfusion imaging for the diagnosis of obstructive coronary disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 60(18), 1828-1837 (2012).
45. 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 2(7), 846-854 (2009).
46. Slomka PJ, Dey D, Duvall WL, Henzlova MJ, Berman DS, Germano G. Advances in nuclear cardiac instrumentation with a view towards reduced radiation exposure. Curr. Cardiol. Rep. 14(2), 208-216 (2012).
47. Garcia EV. Physical attributes, limitations, and future potential for PET and SPECT. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 19(Suppl. 1), S19-S29 (2012).
48. Schwaiger M, Ziegler SI, Nekolla SG. PET/ CT challenge for the non-invasive diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Eur. J. Radiol. 73(3), 494-503 (2010).
49. Saraste A, Kajander S, Han C, Nesterov SV, Knuuti J. PET: is myocardial flow quantification a clinical reality? J. Nucl. Cardiol. 19(5), 1044-1059 (2012).
50. Ukkonen H, Knuuti J, Katoh C et al. Use of [11C]acetate and [15O]O2 PET for the assessment of myocardial oxygen utilization in patients with chronic myocardial infarction. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 28(3), 334-339 (2001).