PET and MRI in cardiac imaging: from validation studies to integrated applications

  • Stephan G. NekollaEmail author
  • Axel Martinez-Moeller
  • Antti Saraste



Positron emission tomography (PET) is the gold standard for non-invasive assessment of myocardial viability and allows accurate detection of coronary artery disease by assessment of myocardial perfusion. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides high resolution anatomical images that allow accurate evaluation of ventricular structure and function together with detection of myocardial infarction.


Potential hybrid PET/MR tomography may potentially facilitate the combination of information from these imaging modalities in cardiology. Furthermore, the combination of anatomical MRI images with the high sensitivity of PET for detecting molecular targets may extent the application of these modalities to the characterization of atherosclerotic plaques and to the evaluation of angiogenetic or stem cell therapies, for example.


This article reviews studies using MRI and PET in parallel to compare their performance in cardiac applications together with the potential benefits and applications provided by hybrid PET/MRI systems.


PET MRI Cardiac imaging Hybrid PET/MRI 



Dr. Saraste received financial assistance from the EC-FP6-project DiMI (LSHBCT-2005-512146) and the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research. A. Martinez-Moeller is funded partially by a research grant from Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany.


  1. 1.
    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). J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:1318–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eisner RL, Patterson RE. Attenuation correction for stress and rest PET 82Rb myocardial perfusion images. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1912–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allman KC, Shaw LJ, Hachamovitch R, Udelson JE. Myocardial viability testing and impact of revascularization on prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1151–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Swedberg K, Cleland J, Dargie H, Drexler H, Follath F, Komajda M, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure: executive summary (update 2005): The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2005;26:1115–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000;41(8):1369–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Naghavi M, Libby P, Falk E, Casscells SW, Litovsky S, Rumberger J, et al. From vulnerable plaque to vulnerable patient: a call for new definitions and risk assessment strategies: Part I. Circulation 2003;108:1664–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martinez-Moller A, Zikic D, Botnar RM, Bundschuh RA, Howe W, Ziegler SI, et al. Dual cardiac-respiratory gated PET: implementation and results from a feasibility study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1447–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2002;18:539–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Makela T, Clarysse P, Sipila O, Pauna N, Pham QC, Katila T, et al. A review of cardiac image registration methods. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2002;21:1011–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sinha S, Sinha U, Czernin J, Porenta G, Schelbert HR. Noninvasive assessment of myocardial perfusion and metabolism: feasibility of registering gated MR and PET images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164:301–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mäkela T, Clarysse P, Lötjönen J, Sipilä O, Lauerma K, Hänninen H, et al. A new method for the registration of cardiac PET and MR images using deformable model based segmentation of the main thorax structures. In: Niessen W, Viergever M, editors. Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention – MICCAI 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2208. 4th International Conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands, October 14–17, 2001. Heidelberg: Springer; 2001. p. 557–64.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Souvatzoglou M, Bengel F, Busch R, Kruschke C, Fernolendt H, Lee D, et al. Attenuation correction in cardiac PET/CT with three different CT protocols: a comparison with conventional PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1991–2000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bluemke DA, Achenbach S, Budoff M, Gerber TC, Gersh B, Hillis LD, et al. Noninvasive coronary artery imaging: magnetic resonance angiography and multidetector computed tomography angiography: a scientific statement from the american heart association committee on cardiovascular imaging and intervention of the council on cardiovascular radiology and intervention, and the councils on clinical cardiology and cardiovascular disease in the young. Circulation 2008;118:586–606.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marwick TH, Shan K, Patel S, Go RT, Lauer MS. Incremental value of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography for prognostic assessment of known or suspected coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1997;80:865–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schwaiger M, Melin J. Cardiological applications of nuclear medicine. Lancet 1999;354:661–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Manning WJ, Atkinson DJ, Grossman W, Paulin S, Edelman RR. First-pass nuclear magnetic resonance imaging studies using gadolinium-DTPA in patients with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;18:959–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nandalur KR, Dwamena BA, Choudhri AF, Nandalur MR, Carlos RC. Diagnostic performance of stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:1343–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schwitter J, Wacker CM, van Rossum AC, Lombardi M, Al-Saadi N, Ahlstrom H, et al. MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial. Eur Heart J 2008;29:480–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schwitter J, DeMarco T, Kneifel S, von Schulthess GK, Jorg MC, Arheden H, et al. Magnetic resonance-based assessment of global coronary flow and flow reserve and its relation to left ventricular functional parameters: a comparison with positron emission tomography. Circulation 2000;101:2696–702.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ibrahim T, Nekolla SG, Schreiber K, Odaka K, Volz S, Mehilli J, et al. Assessment of coronary flow reserve: comparison between contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:864–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sharples L, Hughes V, Crean A, Dyer M, Buxton M, Goldsmith K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of functional cardiac testing in the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease: a randomised controlled trial. The CECaT trial. Health Technol Assess 2007;11:iii–iv, ix-115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim WY, Danias PG, Stuber M, Flamm SD, Plein S, Nagel E, et al. Coronary magnetic resonance angiography for the detection of coronary stenoses. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1863–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Larose E, Yeghiazarians Y, Libby P, Yucel EK, Aikawa M, Kacher DF, et al. Characterization of human atherosclerotic plaques by intravascular magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation 2005;112:2324–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kim WY, Stuber M, Bornert P, Kissinger KV, Manning WJ, Botnar RM. Three-dimensional black-blood cardiac magnetic resonance coronary vessel wall imaging detects positive arterial remodeling in patients with nonsignificant coronary artery disease. Circulation 2002;106:296–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Libby P. Inflammation in atherosclerosis. Nature 2002;420:868–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rudd JH, Warburton EA, Fryer TD, Jones HA, Clark JC, Antoun N, et al. Imaging atherosclerotic plaque inflammation with [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Circulation 2002;105:2708–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sanz J, Fayad ZA. Imaging of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Nature 2008;451:953–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Germano G, Kiat H, Kavanagh PB, Moriel M, Mazzanti M, Su HT, et al. Automatic quantification of ejection fraction from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med 1995;36:2138–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Khorsand A, Graf S, Frank H, Kletter K, Sochor H, Maurer G, et al. Model-based analysis of electrocardiography-gated cardiac (18)F-FDG PET images to assess left ventricular geometry and contractile function. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1741–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schaefer WM, Lipke CS, Nowak B, Kaiser HJ, Reinartz P, Buecker A, et al. Validation of QGS and 4D-MSPECT for quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction from gated 18F-FDG PET: comparison with cardiac MRI. J Nucl Med 2004;45:74–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bellenger NG, Davies LC, Francis JM, Coats AJ, Pennell DJ. Reduction in sample size for studies of remodeling in heart failure by the use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2000;2:271–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bengel FM, Lehnert J, Ibrahim T, Klein C, Bulow HP, Nekolla SG, et al. Cardiac oxidative metabolism, function, and metabolic performance in mild hyperthyroidism: a noninvasive study using positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Thyroid 2003;13:471–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schinkel AF, Poldermans D, Elhendy A, Bax JJ. Assessment of myocardial viability in patients with heart failure. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1135–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kim RJ, Fieno DS, Parrish TB, Harris K, Chen EL, Simonetti O, et al. Relationship of MRI delayed contrast enhancement to irreversible injury, infarct age, and contractile function. Circulation 1999;100:1992–2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Klein C, Nekolla SG, Balbach T, Schnackenburg B, Nagel E, Fleck E, et al. The influence of myocardial blood flow and volume of distribution on late Gd-DTPA kinetics in ischemic heart failure. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;20:588–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Klein C, Schmal TR, Nekolla SG, Schnackenburg B, Fleck E, Nagel E. Mechanism of late gadolinium enhancement in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2007;9:653–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Klein C, Nekolla SG, Bengel FM, Momose M, Sammer A, Haas F, et al. Assessment of myocardial viability with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with positron emission tomography. Circulation 2002;105:162–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kim RJ, Wu E, Rafael A, Chen EL, Parker MA, Simonetti O, et al. The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to identify reversible myocardial dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1445–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kuhl HP, Lipke CS, Krombach GA, Katoh M, Battenberg TF, Nowak B, et al. Assessment of reversible myocardial dysfunction in chronic ischaemic heart disease: comparison of contrast-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance and a combined positron emission tomography–single photon emission computed tomography imaging protocol. Eur Heart J 2006;27:846–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gerber BL, Rochitte CE, Bluemke DA, Melin JA, Crosille P, Becker LC, et al. Relation between Gd-DTPA contrast enhancement and regional inotropic response in the periphery and center of myocardial infarction. Circulation 2001;104:998–1004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schmidt M, Voth E, Schneider CA, Theissen P, Wagner R, Baer FM, et al. F-18-FDG uptake is a reliable predictory of functional recovery of akinetic but viable infarct regions as defined by magnetic resonance imaging before and after revascularization. Magn Reson Imaging 2004;22:229–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Higuchi T, Nekolla SG, Jankaukas A, Weber AW, Huisman MC, Reder S, et al. Characterization of normal and infarcted rat myocardium using a combination of small-animal PET and clinical MRI. J Nucl Med 2007;48:288–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Haas F, Haehnel CJ, Picker W, Nekolla S, Martinoff S, Meisner H, et al. Preoperative positron emission tomographic viability assessment and perioperative and postoperative risk in patients with advanced ischemic heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:1693–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kwong RY, Chan AK, Brown KA, Chan CW, Reynolds HG, Tsang S, et al. Impact of unrecognized myocardial scar detected by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging on event-free survival in patients presenting with signs or symptoms of coronary artery disease. Circulation 2006;113:2733–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bengel FM, Schwaiger M. Assessment of cardiac sympathetic neuronal function using PET imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2004;11:603–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Verberne HJ, Brewster LM, Somsen GA, van Eck-Smit BL. Prognostic value of myocardial 123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) parameters in patients with heart failure: a systematic review. Eur Heart J 2008;29:1147–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sasano T, Abraham MR, Chang KC, Ashikaga H, Mills KJ, Holt DP, et al. Abnormal sympathetic innervation of viable myocardium and the substrate of ventricular tachycardia after myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:2266–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Haubner R, Weber WA, Beer AJ, Vabuliene E, Reim D, Sarbia M, et al. Noninvasive visualization of the activated alphavbeta3 integrin in cancer patients by positron emission tomography and [18F]Galacto-RGD. PLoS Med 2005;2:e70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Higuchi T, Bengel FM, Seidl S, Watzlowik P, Kessler H, Hegenloh R, et al. Assessment of alphavbeta3 integrin expression after myocardial infarction by positron emission tomography. Cardiovasc Res 2008;78:395–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Makowski MR, Ebersberger U, Nekolla S, Schwaiger M. In vivo molecular imaging of angiogenesis, targeting {alpha}v{beta}3 integrin expression, in a patient after acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2008 Mar 27.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zhang SJ, Wu JC. Comparison of imaging techniques for tracking cardiac stem cell therapy. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1916–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bengel FM, Anton M, Richter T, Simoes MV, Haubner R, Henke J, et al. Noninvasive imaging of transgene expression by use of positron emission tomography in a pig model of myocardial gene transfer. Circulation 2003;108:2127–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan G. Nekolla
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Axel Martinez-Moeller
    • 2
  • Antti Saraste
    • 2
  1. 1.Nuklearmedizinische Klinik und PoliklinikTechnischen Universität MünchenMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Nuklearmedizinische KlinikTechnischen Universität MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations