Clinical use of quantitative cardiac perfusion PET: rationale, modalities and possible indications. Position paper of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 43, Issue 8, 2016, Pages 1530-1545

  Sciagrà, Roberto ^a   Passeri, Alessandro ^a   Bucerius, Jan ^b,c,d   Verberne, Hein J ^e   Slart, Riemer H J A ^f,g   Lindner, Oliver ^h   Gimelli, Alessia ⁱ   Hyafil, Fabien ^j,k   Agostini, Denis ^l   Übleis, Christopher ^m   Hacker, Marcus ⁿ  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE   (Italy)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL RWTH AACHEN   (Germany)

^e ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^f UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^h RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

ⁱ FONDAZIONE TOSCANA GABRIELE MONASTERIO   (Italy)

^j BICHAT HOSPITAL   (France)

^k TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^l Siemens Healthcare   (France)

^m UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

ⁿ MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

more..

Author keywords

Coronary flow reserve; Myocardial blood flow; Positron emission tomography

Indexed keywords

NITROGEN 13; OXYGEN 15; RUBIDIUM 82; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

CARDIAC GATED IMAGING; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; CORONARY FLOW RESERVE; HEART CONTRACTION; HEART MUSCLE BLOOD FLOW; HEART MUSCLE REVASCULARIZATION; HEART SCINTISCANNING; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; LIFESTYLE MODIFICATION; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROGNOSIS; QUANTITATIVE PERFUSION POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RESPIRATORY GATED IMAGING; REVIEW; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY; CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; IMAGE PROCESSING; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; PROCEDURES;

CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL;

EID: 84957582170     PISSN: 16197070     EISSN: 16197089     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-016-3317-5     Document Type: Review

References (153)

1. Tillisch J, Brunken R, Marshall R, Schwaiger M, Mandelkern M, Phelps M, et al. Reversibility of cardiac wall-motion abnormalities predicted by positron tomography. N Engl J Med. 1986;314:884–8.
2. Stewart RE, Schwaiger M, Molina E, Popma J, Gacioch GM, Kalus M, et al. Comparison of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography and thallium-201 SPECT imaging for detection of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1991;67:1303–10.
3. Bateman TM. Advantages and disadvantages of PET and SPECT in a busy clinical practice. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:S3–11.
4. Beanlands R, Heller GV. Proceedings of the ASNC Cardiac PET Summit, 12 May 2014, Baltimore, MD: 1: the value of PET: integrating cardiovascular PET into the care continuum. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:557–62.
5. Bateman TM, Lance Gould K, Di Carli MF. Proceedings of the Cardiac PET Summit, 12 May 2014, Baltimore, MD: 3: quantification of myocardial blood flow. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:571–8.
6. Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH, Bateman TM, Messer JV, Berman DS, et al. ACC/AHA/ASNC guidelines for the clinical use of cardiac radionuclide imaging – executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASNC Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging). Circulation. 2003;108:1404–18.
7. Cremer P, Hachamovitch R, Tamarappoo B. Clinical decision making with myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Semin Nucl Med. 2014;44:320–9.
8. Beller GA. Underestimation of coronary artery disease with SPECT perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:151–3.
9. Di Carli M, Czernin J, Hoh CK, Gerbaudo VH, Brunken RC, Huang SC, et al. Relation among stenosis severity, myocardial blood flow, and flow reserve in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1995;91:1944–51.
10. Gould KL. Does coronary flow trump coronary anatomy? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:1009–23.
11. Parkash R, deKemp RA, Ruddy TD, Kitsikis A, Hart R, Beauchesne L, et al. Potential utility of rubidium 82 PET quantification in patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004;11:440–9.
12. 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. 2009;2:751–8.
13. Fiechter M, Ghadri JR, Gebhard C, Fuchs TA, Pazhenkottil AP, Nkoulou RN, et al. Diagnostic value of 13N-ammonia myocardial perfusion PET: added value of myocardial flow reserve. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1230–4.
14. Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams K, Guo A, Renaud JM, Chow BJ, et al. Does quantification of myocardial flow reserve using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography facilitate detection of multivessel coronary artery disease? J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:670–80.
15. Naya M, Murthy VL, Taqueti VR, Foster CR, Klein J, Garber M, et al. Preserved coronary flow reserve effectively excludes high-risk coronary artery disease on angiography. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:248–55.
16. Johnson NP, Gould KL. Physiological basis for angina and ST-segment change PET-verified thresholds of quantitative stress myocardial perfusion and coronary flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:990–8.
17. Gould KL, Johnson NP, Bateman TM, Beanlands RS, Bengel FM, Bober R, et al. Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease. Role of coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and positron emission tomography imaging in revascularization decision-making. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1639–53.
18. Schindler TH, Quercioli A, Valenta I, Ambrosio G, Wahl RL, Dilsizian V. Quantitative assessment of myocardial blood flow – clinical and research applications. Semin Nucl Med. 2014;44:274–93.
19. Slart RH, Zeebregts CJ, Hillege HL, de Sutter J, Dierckx RA, van Veldhuisen DJ, et al. Myocardial perfusion reserve after a PET-driven revascularization procedure: a strong prognostic factor. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:873–9.
20. Dorbala S, Di Carli MF. Cardiac PET perfusion: prognosis, risk stratification, and clinical management. Semin Nucl Med. 2014;44:344–57.
21. Murthy VL, Di Carli MF. Non-invasive quantification of coronary vascular dysfunction for diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:1060–72.
22. Pearson TA. New tools for coronary risk assessment: what are their advantages and limitations? Circulation. 2002;105:886–92.
23. MacIntyre WJ, Go RT, King JL, Cook SA, Neumann DR, Saha GB, et al. Clinical outcome of cardiac patients with negative thallium-201 SPECT and positive rubidium-82 PET myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:400–4.
24. Yoshinaga K, Chow BJ, Williams K, Chen L, deKemp RA, Garrard L, et al. What is the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1029–39.
25. Dorbala S, Hachamovitch R, Curillova Z, Thomas D, Vangala D, Kwong RY, 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.
26. Schindler TH, Nitzsche EU, Schelbert HR, Olschewski M, Sayre J, Mix M, et al. Positron emission tomography-measured abnormal responses of myocardial blood flow to sympathetic stimulation are associated with the risk of developing cardiovascular events. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1505–12.
27. Tio RA, Dabeshlim A, Siebelink HM, de Sutter J, Hillege HL, Zeebregts CJ, et al. Comparison between the prognostic value of left ventricular function and myocardial perfusion reserve in patients with ischemic heart disease. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:214–9.
28. Herzog BA, Husmann L, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, Siegrist PT, Tay FM, et al. Long-term prognostic value of 13N-ammonia myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography: added value of coronary flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:150–6.
29. Fukushima K, Javadi MS, Higuchi T, Lautamäki R, Merrill J, Nekolla SG, 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. 2011;52:726–32.
30. Ziadi MC, deKemp RA, Williams KA, Guo A, Chow BJ, Renaud JM, 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. 2011;58:740–8.
31. Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Hainer J, Gaber M, Di Carli G, et al. Improved cardiac risk assessment with noninvasive measures of coronary flow reserve. Circulation. 2011;124:2215–24.
32. Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Gaber M, Hainer J, Klein J, et al. Association between coronary vascular dysfunction and cardiac mortality in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2012;126:1858–68.
33. Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Hainer J, Gaber M, Dorbala S, et al. Coronary vascular dysfunction and prognosis in patients with chronic kidney disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:1025–34.
34. Farhad H, Dunet V, Bachelard K, Allenbach G, Kaufmann PA, Prior JO. Added prognostic value of myocardial blood flow quantification in rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;14:1203–10.
35. Mc Ardle BA, Davies RA, Chen L, Small GR, Ruddy TD, Dwivedi G, et al. Prognostic value of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography in patients after heart transplant. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:930–7.
36. Juárez-Orozco LE, Glauche J, Alexanderson E, Zeebregts CJ, Boersma HH, Glaudemans AW, et al. Myocardial perfusion reserve in spared myocardium: correlation with infarct size and left ventricular ejection fraction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1148–54.
37. Taqueti VR, Everett BM, Murthy VL, Gaber M, Foster CR, Hainer J, et al. Interaction of impaired coronary flow reserve and cardiomyocyte injury on adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients without overt coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2015;131:528–35.
38. Taqueti VR, Hachamovitch R, Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Hainer J, et al. Global coronary flow reserve is associated with adverse cardiovascular events independently of luminal angiographic severity and modifies the effect of early revascularization. Circulation. 2015;131:19–27.
39. Camici P, Chiriatti G, Lorenzoni R, Bellina RC, Gistri R, Italiani G, et al. Coronary vasodilation is impaired in both hypertrophied and nonhypertrophied myocardium of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a study with nitrogen-13 ammonia and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;17:879–86.
40. Cecchi F, Sgalambro A, Baldi M, Sotgia B, Antoniucci D, Camici PG, et al. Microvascular dysfunction, myocardial ischemia, and progression to heart failure in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2009;2:452–61.
41. Cecchi F, Olivotto I, Gistri R, Lorenzoni R, Chiriatti G, Camici PG. Coronary microvascular dysfunction and prognosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1027–35.
42. Olivotto I, Cecchi F, Gistri R, Lorenzoni R, Chiriatti G, Girolami F, et al. Relevance of coronary microvascular flow impairment to long-term remodeling and systolic dysfunction in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1043–8.
43. Neglia D, Michelassi C, Trivieri MG, Sambuceti G, Giorgetti A, Pratali L, et al. Prognostic role of myocardial blood flow impairment in idiopathic left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation. 2002;105:186–93.
44. Majmudar MD, Murthy VL, Shah RV, Kolli S, Mousavi N, Foster CR, et al. Quantification of coronary flow reserve in patients with ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy and its association with clinical outcomes. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:900–9.
45. Tomberli B, Cecchi F, Sciagrà R, Berti V, Lisi F, Torricelli F, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction is an early feature of cardiac involvement in patients with Anderson-Fabry disease. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15:1363–73.
46. Dorbala S, Vangala D, Bruyere Jr J, Quarta C, Kruger J, Padera R, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction is related to abnormalities in myocardial structure and function in cardiac amyloidosis. JACC Heart Fail. 2014;2:358–67.
47. Votaw JR, White M. Comparison of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional cardiac Rb-82 PET studies. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:701–6.
48. Raylman RR, Caraher JM, Hutchins GD. Sampling requirements for dynamic cardiac PET studies using image-derived input functions. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:440–7.
49. Moody JB, Lee BC, Corbett JR, Ficaro EP, Murthy VL. Precision and accuracy of clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow by dynamic PET: a technical perspective. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:935–51.
50. Chen GP, Branch KR, Alessio AM, Pham P, Tabibiazar R, Kinahan P, et al. Effect of reconstruction algorithms on myocardial blood flow measurement with 13N-ammonia PET. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1259–65.
51. Van Velden FHP, Kloet RW, van Berckel BNM, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R. Accuracy of 3-dimensional reconstruction algorithms for the high-resolution research tomograph. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:72–80.
52. Walker MD, Asselin M-C, Julyan PJ, Feldmann M, Talbot PS, Jones T, et al. Bias in iterative reconstruction of low-statistics PET data: benefits of a resolution model. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:931–49.
53. Rahmim A, Qi J, Sossi V. Resolution modeling in PET imaging: theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls. Med Phys. 2013;40:064301.
54. Tong S, Alessio AM, Thielemans K, Stearns C, Ross S, Kinahan PE. Properties and mitigation of edge artifacts in PSF-based PET reconstruction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2011;58:2264–75.
55. Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G. Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:462–70.
56. Westerwoudt V, Conti M, Eriksson L. Advantages of improved time resolution for TOF PET at very low statistics. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2014;61:126–33.
57. Presotto L, Busnardo E, Bettinardi V, Landoni C, Todeschini P, Rimoldi O, et al. Evaluation of time of flight (TOF) and point spread function (PSF) reconstructions in the quantification of myocardial blood flow with 13N ammonia and PET: Comparison among reconstructions (reprojection, OSEM), software (PMOD and CARIMAS) and operators. Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), 2012 IEEE. p. 3979–82.
58. Armstrong IS, Tonge CM, Arumugam P. Impact of point spread function modeling and time-of-flight on myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve measurements for rubidium-82 cardiac PET. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014;21:467–74.
59. Tomiyama T, Ishihara K, Suda M, Kanaya K, Sakurai M, Takahashi N, et al. Impact of time-of-flight on qualitative and quantitative analyses of myocardial perfusion PET studies using 13N-ammonia. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:998–1007.
60. Maddahi J, Packard RRS. Cardiac PET perfusion tracers: current status and future directions. Semin Nucl Med. 2014;44:333–43.
61. Bergmann SR, Fox KA, Rand AL, McElvany KD, Welch MJ, Markham J, et al. Quantification of regional myocardial blood flow in vivo with H215O. Circulation. 1984;70:724–33.
62. Hermansen F, Ashburner J, Spinks TJ, Kooner JS, Camici PG, Lammertsma AA. Generation of myocardial factor images directly from the dynamic oxygen-15-water scan without use of an oxygen-15-carbon monoxide blood-pool scan. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:1696–702.
63. Kajander S, Joutsiniemi E, Saraste M, Pietila M, Ukkonen H, Saraste A, et al. Cardiac positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging accurately detects anatomically and functionally significant coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2010;122:603–13.
64. Di Carli MF, Dorbala S, Meserve J, El Fakhri G, Sitek A, Moore SC. Clinical myocardial perfusion PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:783–93.
65. Krivokapich J, Smith GT, Huang SC, Hoffman EJ, Ratib O, Phelps ME, et al. 13N ammonia myocardial imaging at rest and with exercise in normal volunteers: quantification of absolute myocardial perfusion with dynamic positron emission tomography. Circulation. 1989;80:1328–37.
66. Muzik O, Beanlands RS, Hutchins GD, Manger TJ, Nguyen N, Schwaiger M. Validation of nitrogen-13-ammonia tracer kinetic model for quantification of myocardial blood flow using PET. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:83–91.
67. DeGrado TR, Hanson MW, Turkington TG, Delong DM, Brezinski DA, Vallée JP, et al. Estimation of myocardial blood flow for longitudinal studies with 13N-labeled ammonia and positron emission tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 1996;3:494–507.
68. Hutchins GD, Schwaiger M, Rosenspire KC, Krivokapich J, Schelbert H, Kuhl DE. Noninvasive quantification of regional blood flow in the human heart using N-13 ammonia and dynamic positron emission tomographic imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;15:1032–42.
69. Herrero P, Markham J, Shelton ME, Weinheimer CJ, Bergmann SR. Noninvasive quantification of regional myocardial perfusion with rubidium-82 and positron emission tomography: exploration of a mathematical model. Circulation. 1990;82:1377–86.
70. El Fakhri G, Sitek A, Guerin B, Kijewski MF, Di Carli MF, Moore SC. Quantitative dynamic cardiac 82Rb PET using generalized factor and compartment analyses. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1264–71.
71. Lortie M, Beanlands RSB, Yoshinaga K, Klein R, DaSilva JN, deKemp RA. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1765–74.
72. Klein R, Adler A, Beanlands RS, deKemp RA. Precision-controlled elution of a 82Sr/82Rb generator for cardiac perfusion imaging with positron emission tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:659–73.
73. Klein R, Beanlands RS, deKemp RA. Quantification of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve: technical aspects. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:555–70.
74. Tout D, Tonge C, Muthu S, Arumugam P. Assessment of a protocol for routine simultaneous myocardial blood flow measurement and standard myocardial perfusion imaging with rubidium-82 on a high count rate positron emission tomography system. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33:1202–11.
75. Martin CC, Christian BT, Satter MR, Nickerson LDH, Nickles RJ. Quantitative PET with positron emitters that emit prompt gamma rays. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1995;14:681–7.
76. Esteves FP, Nye JA, Khan A, Folks RD, Halkar RK, Garcia EV, et al. Prompt-gamma compensation in Rb-82 myocardial perfusion 3D PET/CT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:247–53.
77. Danad I, Uusitalo V, Kero T, Saraste A, Raijmakers PG, Lammertsma AA, et al. Quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion in the detection of significant coronary artery disease: cutoff values and diagnostic accuracy of quantitative [15O]H2O PET imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1464–75.
78. Schindler TH, Dilsizian V. PET-determined hyperemic myocardial blood flow: further progress to clinical application. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1476–8.
79. Goudarzi B, Fukushima K, Bravo P, Merrill J, Bengel FM. Comparison of the myocardial blood flow response to regadenoson and dipyridamole: a quantitative analysis in patients referred for clinical 82Rb myocardial perfusion PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1908–16.
80. Hsiao E, Ali B, Blankstein R, Skali H, Ali T, Bruyere Jr J, et al. Detection of obstructive coronary artery disease using regadenoson stress and 82Rb PET/CT myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1748–54.
81. Cullom SJ, Case JA, Courter SA, McGhie AI, Bateman TM. Regadenoson pharmacologic rubidium-82 PET: a comparison of quantitative perfusion and function to dipyridamole. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:76–83.
82. Johnson NP, Gould KL. Regadenoson versus dipyridamole hyperemia for cardiac PET imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:438–47.
83. Sinusas AJ. Does a shortened hyperemia with regadenoson stress pose a concern for quantitative Rb-82 PET imaging? Optimization of regadenoson PET imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:448–50.
84. Dorbala S, Vangala D, Sampson U, Limaye A, Kwong R, Di Carli MF. 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;48:349–58.
85. Javadi MS, Lautamaki R, Merrill J, Voicu C, Epley W, McBride G, et al. Definition of vascular territories on myocardial perfusion images by integration with true coronary anatomy: a hybrid PET/CT analysis. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:198–203.
86. Thomassen A, Petersen H, Johansen A, Braad PE, Diederichsen AC, Mickley H, et al. Quantitative myocardial perfusion by O-15-water PET: individualized vs. standardized vascular territories. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:970–6.
87. Sciagrà R, Passeri A, Cipollini F, Castagnoli H, Olivotto I, Burger C, et al. Validation of pixel-wise parametric mapping of myocardial blood flow with (13)NH3 PET in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1581–8.
88. Gould KL, Pan T, Loghin C, Johnson NP, Guha A, Sdringola S. 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;48:1112–21.
89. Martinez-Moller A, Souvatzoglou M, Navab N, Schwaiger M, Nekolla SG. Artifacts from misaligned CT in cardiac perfusion PET/CT studies: frequency, effects, and potential solutions. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:188–93.
90. Lautamaki R, Brown TL, Merrill J, Bengel FM. CT-based attenuation correction in (82)Rb-myocardial perfusion PET-CT: incidence of misalignment and effect on regional tracer distribution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:305–10.
91. Livieratos L, Rajappan K, Stegger L, Schafers K, Bailey DL, Camici PG. Respiratory gating of cardiac PET data in list-mode acquisition. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:584–8.
92. Schleyer PJ, Thielemans K, Marsden PK. Extracting a respiratory signal from raw dynamic PET data that contain tracer kinetics. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:4345–56.
93. Garcia EV. Proceedings of the Cardiac PET Summit Meeting 12 May 2014: Cardiac PET and SPECT instrumentation. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:563–70.
94. Saraste A, Kajander S, Han C, Nesterov SV, Knuuti J. PET: is myocardial flow quantification a clinical reality? J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:1044–59.
95. Choi Y, Huang SC, Hawkins RA, Kim JY, Kim BT, Hoh CK, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow using 13N-ammonia and PET: comparison of tracer models. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1045–55.
96. Hoffman EJ, Huang SC, Plummer D, Phelps ME. Quantification in positron emission tomography: 6. Effect of nonuniform resolution. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1982;6:987–99.
97. Hove JD, Gambhir SS, Kofoed KF, Freiberg J, Kelbaek H. Quantification of the regional blood flow in the interventricular septum using positron emission tomography and nitrogen-13 ammonia. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:109–16.
98. Hutchins GD, Caraher JM, Raylman RR. A region of interest strategy for minimizing resolution distortions in quantitative myocardial PET studies. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:1243–50.
99. Sawada S, Muzik O, Beanlands RS, Wolfe E, Hutchins GD, Schwaiger M. Interobserver and interstudy variability of myocardial blood flow and flow-reserve measurements with nitrogen 13 ammonia-labeled positron emission tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 1995;2:413–22.
100. Nagamachi S, Czernin J, Kim AS, Sun KT, Böttcher M, Phelps ME, et al. Reproducibility of measurements of regional resting and hyperemic myocardial blood flow assessed with PET. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1626–31.
101. Kaufmann PA, Gnecchi-Ruscone T, Yap JT, Rimoldi O, Camici PG. Assessment of the reproducibility of baseline and hyperemic myocardial blood flow measurements with 15O-labeled water and PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1848–56.
102. Jagathesan R, Kaufmann PA, Rosen SD, Rimoldi OE, Turkeimer F, Foale R, et al. Assessment of the long-term reproducibility of baseline and dobutamine-induced myocardial blood flow in patients with stable coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:212–9.
103. Knešaurek K, Machac J, Zhang Z. Repeatability of regional myocardial blood flow calculation in 82Rb PET imaging. BMC Med Phys. 2009;9:2.
104. Nesterov SV, Han C, Mäki M, Kajander S, Naum AG, Helenius H, et al. Myocardial perfusion quantification with 15O-labeled water PET: high reproducibility of the new cardiac analysis software (CarimasTM). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1594–602.
105. El Fakhri G, Kardan A, Sitek A, Dorbala S, Abi-Hatem N, Lahoud Y, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of quantitative myocardial blood flow assessment with 82Rb PET: comparison with 13N-ammonia PET. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1062–71.
106. Manabe O, Yoshinaga K, Katoh C, Naya M, deKemp RA, Tamaki N. Repeatability of rest and hyperemic myocardial blood flow measurements with 82Rb dynamic PET. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:68–71.
107. Klein R, Renaud JM, Ziadi MC, Thorn SL, Adler A, Beanlands RS, 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. 2010;17:600–16.
108. Efseaff M, Klein R, Ziadi MC, Beanlands RS, deKemp RA. Short-term repeatability of resting myocardial blood flow measurements using rubidium-82 PET imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:997–1006.
109. Choi Y, Huang SC, Hawkins RA, Kim JY, Kim BT, Hoh CK, et al. A simplified method for quantification of myocardial blood flow using nitrogen-13-ammonia and dynamic PET. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:488–97.
110. Coxson PG, Huesman RH, Borland L. Consequences of using a simplified kinetic model for dynamic PET data. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:660–7.
111. Slomka PJ, Alexanderson E, Jácome R, Jiménez M, Romero E, Meave A, 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. 2012;53:171–81.
112. deKemp RA, Declerck J, Klein R, Pan X-B, Nakazato R, Tonge C, et al. Multisoftware reproducibility study of stress and rest myocardial blood flow assessed with 3D dynamic PET/CT and a 1-tissue-compartment model of 82Rb kinetics. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:571–7.
113. Tahari AK, Lee A, Rajaram M, Fukushima K, Lodge MA, Lee BC, et al. Absolute myocardial flow quantification with 82Rb PET/CT: comparison of different software packages and methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:126–35.
114. Nesterov SV, Deshayes E, Sciagrà R, Settimo L, Declerck JM, Pan X-B, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow in absolute terms using 82Rb PET imaging: results of RUBY-10 study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:1119–27.
115. Harms HJ, Nesterov SV, Han C, Danad I, Leonora R, Raijmakers PG, et al. Comparison of clinical non-commercial tools for automated quantification of myocardial blood flow using oxygen-15-labelled water PET/CT. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;15:431–41.
116. Sunderland JJ, Pan X-B, Declerck J, Menda Y. Dependency of cardiac rubidium-82 imaging quantitative measures on age, gender, vascular territory, and software in a cardiovascular normal population. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:72–84.
117. Dunet V, Klein R, Allenbach G, Renaud J, deKemp RA, Prior JO. Myocardial blood flow quantification by Rb-82 cardiac PET/CT: a detailed reproducibility study between two semi-automatic analysis programs. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015. doi:10.1007/s12350-015-0151-2
118. Bateman TM, Case JA. Variability in normal myocardial blood flow measurements: physiologic, methodologic, or protocol related? J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:85–8.
119. Sampson UK, Dorbala S, Limaye A, Kwong R, Di Carli MF. 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;49:1052–8.
120. Santana CA, Folks RD, Garcia EV, Verdes L, Sanyal R, Hainer J, et al. Quantitative 82Rb PET/CT: development and validation of myocardial perfusion database. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1122–8.
121. Czernin J, Müller P, Chan S, Brunken RC, Porenta G, Krivokapich J, et al. Influence of age and hemodynamics on myocardial blood flow and flow reserve. Circulation. 1993;88:62–9.
122. Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Appelman YE, Harms HJ, de Haan S, van den Oever ML, et al. Hybrid imaging using quantitative H215O PET and CT-based coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:55–63.
123. Vermeltfoort IA, Raijmakers PG, Lubberink M, Germans T, van Rossum AC, Lammertsma AA, et al. Feasibility of subendocardial and subepicardial myocardial perfusion measurements in healthy normals with (15)O-labeled water and positron emission tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2011;18:650–6.
124. Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Harms HJ, Heymans MW, van Royen N, Lubberink M, et al. Impact of anatomical and functional severity of coronary atherosclerotic plaques on the transmural perfusion gradient: a [15O]H2O PET study. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2094–105.
125. Knaapen P, Germans T, Camici PG, Rimoldi OE, ten Cate FJ, ten Berg JM, et al. Determinants of coronary microvascular dysfunction in symptomatic hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2008;294:H986–93.
126. Muzik O, Duvernoy C, Beanlands RS, Sawada S, Dayanikli F, Wolfe Jr ER, et al. Assessment of diagnostic performance of quantitative flow measurements in normal subjects and patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease by means of nitrogen-13 ammonia and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:534–40.
127. Morton G, Chiribiri A, Ishida M, Hussain ST, Schuster A, Indermuehle A, et al. Quantification of absolute myocardial perfusion in patients with coronary artery disease: comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1546–55.
128. Anagnostopoulos C, Almonacid A, El Fakhri G, Curillova Z, Sitek A, Roughton M, et al. Quantitative relationship between coronary vasodilator reserve assessed by 82Rb PET imaging and coronary artery stenosis severity. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1593–601.
129. Packard RR, Huang SC, Dahlbom M, Czernin J, Maddahi J. Absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow in human subjects with or without myocardial ischemia using dynamic flurpiridaz F18 PET. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1438–44.
130. Beanlands RS, Chow BJ, Dick A, Friedrich MG, Gulenchyn KY, Kiess M, 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. 2007;23:107–19.
131. Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF, Heidenreich PA, Henkin RE, Pellikka PA, et al. ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 appropriate use criteria for cardiac radionuclide imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Circulation. 2009;119:e561–87.
132. JCS Joint Working Group. Guidelines for clinical use of cardiac nuclear medicine (JCS 2010). Digest version. Circ J. 2012;76:761–7.
133. Le Guludec D, Lautamäki R, Knuuti J, Bax JJ, Bengel FM, European Council of Nuclear Cardiology. Present and future of clinical cardiovascular PET imaging in Europe – a position statement by the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology (ECNC). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1709–24.
134. Flotats A, Knuuti J, Gutberlet M, Marcassa C, Bengel FM, Kaufmann PA, 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. 2011;38:201–12.
135. Acampa W, Gaemperli O, Gimelli A, Knaapen P, Schindler TH, Verberne HJ, et al. Role of risk stratification by SPECT, PET, and hybrid imaging in guiding management of stable patients with ischaemic heart disease: expert panel of the EANM cardiovascular committee and EACVI. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:1289–98.
136. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, Collet JP, Cremer J, Falk V, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. EuroIntervention. 2015;10:1024–94.
137. Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation. 2007;116:1290–305.
138. Achenbach S, Anders K, Kalender WA. Dual-source cardiac computed tomography: image quality and dose considerations. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1188–98.
139. Cerqueira MD, Allman KC, Ficaro EP, Hansen CL, Nichols KJ, Thompson RC. Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:709–18.
140. Senthamizhchelvan S, Bravo PE, Esaias C, Lodge MA, Merrill J, Hobbs RF, et al. Human biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 82Rb. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1592–9.
141. Senthamizhchelvan S, Bravo PE, Lodge MA, Merrill J, Bengel FM, Sgouros G, et al. Radiation dosimetry of 82Rb in humans under pharmacologic stress. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:485–91.
142. Einstein AJ. Effects of radiation exposure from cardiac imaging: how good are the data? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:553–65.
143. Hunter CR, Hill J, Ziadi MC, Beanlands RSB, de Kemp RA. Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 82Rb at rest and during peak pharmacological stress in patients referred for myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1032–42.
144. Naya M, Murthy VL, Blankstein R, Sitek A, Hainer J, Foster C, et al. Quantitative relationship between the extent and morphology of coronary atherosclerotic plaque and downstream myocardial perfusion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1807–16.
145. Liga R, Marini C, Coceani M, Filidei E, Schlueter M, Bianchi M, et al. Structural abnormalities of the coronary arterial wall in addition to luminal narrowing affect myocardial blood flow reserve. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1704–12.
146. Graf S, Khorsand A, Gwechenberger M, Schütz M, Kletter K, Sochor H, et al. Typical chest pain and normal coronary angiogram: cardiac risk factor analysis versus PET for detection of microvascular disease. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:175–81.
147. Coceani M, Ciardetti M, Pasanisi E, Schlueter M, Palmieri C, Neglia D, et al. Surgical correction of left coronary artery origin from the right coronary artery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95:e1–2.
148. Said SA, Nijhuis RL, Akker JW, Takechi M, Slart RH, Bos JS, et al. Unilateral and multilateral congenital coronary-pulmonary fistulas in adults: clinical presentation, diagnostic modalities, and management with a brief review of the literature. Clin Cardiol. 2014;37:536–45.
149. Neglia D, De Maria R, Masi S, Gallopin M, Pisani P, Pardini S, et al. Effects of long-term treatment with carvedilol on myocardial blood flow in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Heart. 2007;93:808–13.
150. Ben-Haim S, Murthy VL, Breault C, Allie R, Sitek A, Roth N, et al. Quantification of myocardial perfusion reserve using dynamic SPECT imaging in humans: a feasibility study. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:873–9.
151. Nakauchi Y, Iwanaga Y, Ikuta S, Kudo M, Kobuke K, Murakami T, et al. Quantitative myocardial perfusion analysis using multi-row detector CT in acute myocardial infarction. Heart. 2012;98:566–72.
152. Lee DC, Johnson NP. Quantification of absolute myocardial blood flow by magnetic resonance perfusion imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:761–70.
153. Dill T. Contraindications to magnetic resonance imaging: non-invasive imaging. Heart. 2008;94:943–8.