Advertisement

Der Kardiologe

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 303–311 | Cite as

Positionspapier Nuklearkardiologie – Update 2018

Aktueller Stand der klinischen Anwendung
  • O. Lindner
  • J. Bauersachs
  • F. Bengel
  • W. Burchert
  • J. vom Dahl
  • R. Dörr
  • M. Hacker
  • M. Kelm
  • T. Rassaf
  • C. Rischpler
  • W. Schäfer
  • M. Schäfers
  • S. Silber
  • R. Zimmermann
Positionspapier
  • 220 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Das gemeinsame Positionspapier der Arbeitsgemeinschaft „Kardiovaskuläre Nuklearmedizin“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Nuklearmedizin (DGN) und der Arbeitsgruppe „Nuklearkardiologische Diagnostik“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie (DGK) aktualisiert das Positionspapier aus dem Jahr 2009. Es gibt einen Überblick über die Einsatzbereiche, den State of the Art und den aktuellen Stellenwert der nuklearkardiologischen Bildgebung. Behandelt werden die Themenfelder der chronischen KHK einschließlich der Vitalitätsdiagnostik, ferner der Kardiomyopathien, der entzündlichen Endokarditiden, der kardialen Sarkoidose und Amyloidose.

Schlüsselwörter

Positionspapier Nuklearkardiologie Indikationen SPECT PET 

Position paper on nuclear cardiology—Update 2018

Current state of clinical application

Abstract

The joint position paper of the working community on Cardiovascular Nuclear Medicine of the German Society of Nuclear Medicine (DGN) and the working group on Nuclear Cardiology Diagnostics of the German Cardiac Society (DKG) updates the former position paper from 2009. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the fields of application, the state of the art and the current value of nuclear cardiology imaging. The topics covered are chronic coronary artery disease including viability diagnostics, cardiomyopathies, inflammatory endocarditis, cardiac sarcoidosis and amyloidosis.

Keywords

Position paper Nuclear cardiology Indications SPECT PET 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

Den Interessenkonflikt der Autoren finden Sie online auf der DGK-Homepage unter http://leitlinien.dgk.org/ bei der entsprechenden Publikation.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Agostini D, Marie PY, Ben-Haim S et al (2016) Performance of cardiac cadmium-zinc-telluride gamma camera imaging in coronary artery disease: a review from the cardiovascular committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:2423–2432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Axer A, Hermann S (2018) Harnessing the maltodextrin transport mechanism for targeted bacterial imaging: structural requirements for improved in vivo stability in tracer design. ChemMedChem 13:241–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bax JJ, Delgado V (2015) Myocardial viability as integral part of the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to ischemic heart failure. J Nucl Cardiol 22:229–245CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benz DC, Templin C, Kaufmann PA et al (2015) Ultra-low-dose hybrid single photon emission computed tomography and coronary computed tomography angiography: a comprehensive and non-invasive diagnostic workup of suspected coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 36:3345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (2012) Bekanntmachung der aktualisierten diagnostischen Referenzwerte für nuklearmedizinische Untersuchungen Vom 25. September 2012. Veröffentlicht am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2012 BAnz AT 19.10.2012 B5Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bundesärztekammer, Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung, Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (2016) Nationale Versorgungs-Leitlinie Chronische KHK (Langfassung), 4. Auflage. Dtsch Arztebl 2017(114):712–719 (AWMF-Register-Nr.: nvl-004. Kurzfassung: Albus C, Barkhausen J, Fleck E, Haasenritter J, Lindner O, Silber S für die Leitliniengruppe NVL Chronische KHK Diagnostik der chronischen koronaren Herzkrankheit Klinische Leitlinie)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caforio AL, Pankuweit S, Arbustini E et al (2013) Current state of knowledge on aetiology, diagnosis, management, and therapy of myocarditis: a position statement of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases. Eur Heart J 34:2636–2648 (2648a–2648d)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caobelli F, Wollenweber T, Bavendiek U et al (2017) Simultaneous dual-isotope solid-state detector SPECT for improved tracking of white blood cells in suspected endocarditis. Eur Heart J 38:436–443PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chareonthaitawee P, Beanlands RS, Chen W et al (2017) Joint SNMMI-ASNC expert consensus document on the role of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in cardiac sarcoid detection and therapy monitoring. J Nucl Med 58:1341–1353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dörr R (2017) Ischemia Studie – Rationale, Design und bisheriger Randomisierungsstatus. Nuklearmediziner 40:48–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Einstein AJ, Blankstein R, Andrews H et al (2014) Comparison of image quality, myocardial perfusion, and left ventricular function between standard imaging and single-injection ultra-low-dose imaging using a high-efficiency SPECT camera: the MILLISIEVERT study. J Nucl Med 55:1430–1437CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erba PA, Conti U, Lazzeri E et al (2012) Added value of 99mTc-HMPAO-labeled leukocyte SPECT/CT in the characterization and management of patients with infectious endocarditis. J Nucl Med 53:1235–1243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Falk RH, Alexander KM, Liao R et al (2016) AL (light-chain) cardiac amyloidosis: a review of diagnosis and therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 68:1323–1341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frantz S, Buerke M, Horstkotte D et al (2016) Kommentar zu den 2015-Leitlinien der Europäischen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie zur Infektiösen Endokarditits. Kardiologe 10:142–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gomes A, Glaudemans A, Touw DJ et al (2017) Diagnostic value of imaging in infective endocarditis: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis 17:e1–e14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gould KL, Johnson NP, Bateman TM et al (2013) 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 62:1639–1653CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greenwood JP, Ripley DP, Berry C et al (2016) Effect of care guided by cardiovascular magnetic resonance, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, or NICE guidelines on subsequent unnecessary angiography rates: the CE-MARC 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 316:1051–1060CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gulati V, Ching G, Heller GV (2013) The role of radionuclide imaging in heart failure. J Nucl Cardiol 20:1173–1183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ et al (2015) 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: The Task Force for the Management of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 36:3075–3128 (Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM))CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD et al (2003) Comparison of the short-term survival benefit associated with revascularization compared with medical therapy in patients with no prior coronary artery disease undergoing stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography. Circulation 107:2900–2907CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hsu B, Chen FC, Wu TC et al (2014) Quantitation of myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve with 99mTc-sestamibi dynamic SPECT/CT to enhance detection of coronary artery disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:2294–2306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hyafil F, Rouzet F, Lepage L et al (2013) Role of radiolabelled leucocyte scintigraphy in patients with a suspicion of prosthetic valve endocarditis and inconclusive echocardiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 14:586–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Juneau D, Golfam M, Hazra S et al (2017) Positron emission tomography and single-photon emission computed tomography imaging in the diagnosis of cardiac implantable electronic device infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 10:e5772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kajander S, Joutsiniemi E, Saraste M et al (2010) Cardiac positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging accurately detects anatomically and functionally significant coronary artery disease. Circulation 122:603–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Knuuti J, Bengel F, Bax JJ et al (2014) Risks and benefits of cardiac imaging: an analysis of risks related to imaging for coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 35:633–638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liga R, Vontobel J, Rovai D et al (2016) Multicentre multi-device hybrid imaging study of coronary artery disease: results from the EValuation of INtegrated Cardiac Imaging for the Detection and Characterization of Ischaemic Heart Disease (EVINCI) hybrid imaging population. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 17:951–960CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lindner O, Bengel F, Burchert W et al (2017) Myokard-Perfusions-SPECT (DGN Handlungsempfehlung (S1-Leitlinie)). AWMF Registernummer 031-006 (www.awmf.org)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lindner O, Burchert W, Schäfer W et al (2017) Myocardial perfusion SPECT 2015 in Germany. Results of the 7th survey. Nuklearmedizin 56:31–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marques KM, Knaapen P, Boellaard R et al (2007) Microvascular function in viable myocardium after chronic infarction does not influence fractional flow reserve measurements. J Nucl Med 48:1987–1992CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McMurray JJ, Adamopoulos S, Anker SD et al (2012) ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail 14:803–869 (Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S et al (2013) 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the task force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 34:2949–3003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    O’Meara E, Mielniczuk LM, Wells GA et al (2013) Alternative Imaging Modalities in Ischemic Heart Failure (AIMI-HF) IMAGE HF project I‑A: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 14:218CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Packard RR, Huang SC, Dahlbom M et al (2014) Absolute quantitation of myocardial blood flow in human subjects with or without myocardial ischemia using dynamic flurpiridaz F 18 PET. J Nucl Med 55:1438–1444CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pettersson GB, Coselli JS, Pettersson GB et al (2017) 2016 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) consensus guidelines: surgical treatment of infective endocarditis: executive summary. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 153:1241–1258.e1229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rouzet F, Chequer R, Benali K et al (2014) Respective performance of 18F-FDG PET and radiolabeled leukocyte scintigraphy for the diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis. J Nucl Med 55:1980–1985CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schaap J, De Groot JA, Nieman K et al (2014) Added value of hybrid myocardial perfusion SPECT and CT coronary angiography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 15:1281–1288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schäfers M, Bengel F, Bull U et al (2009) Position paper nuclear cardiology: update 2008. Nuklearmedizin 48:71–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schinkel AF, Bax JJ, Poldermans D et al (2007) Hibernating myocardium: diagnosis and patient outcomes. Curr Probl Cardiol 32:375–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Slart R, Glaudemans A, Lancellotti P et al (2018) A joint procedural position statement on imaging in cardiac sarcoidosis. J Nucl Cardiol 25:298–319 (from the Cardiovascular and Inflammation & Infection Committees of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine, the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sohns JM, Bavendiek U, Ross TL et al (2017) Targeting cardiovascular implant infection: multimodality and molecular imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 10:e5376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Soman P, Lahiri A, Mieres JH et al (2009) Etiology and pathophysiology of new-onset heart failure: evaluation by myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 16:82–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Verberne HJ, Acampa W, Anagnostopoulos C et al (2015) EANM procedural guidelines for radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging with SPECT and SPECT/CT: 2015 revision. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:1929–1940CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vrachimis A, Honold L, Faust A et al (2016) New molecular probes of vascular inflammation. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 60:194–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F et al (2014) 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 35:2541–2619 (The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI))CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wollenweber T, Bengel FM (2014) Cardiac molecular imaging. Semin Nucl Med 44:386–397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie - Herz- und Kreislaufforschung e.V. Published by Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature - all rights reserved 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Lindner
    • 1
  • J. Bauersachs
    • 2
  • F. Bengel
    • 3
  • W. Burchert
    • 1
  • J. vom Dahl
    • 4
  • R. Dörr
    • 5
  • M. Hacker
    • 6
  • M. Kelm
    • 7
    • 8
  • T. Rassaf
    • 9
  • C. Rischpler
    • 10
  • W. Schäfer
    • 11
  • M. Schäfers
    • 12
    • 13
  • S. Silber
    • 14
  • R. Zimmermann
    • 15
  1. 1.Institut für Radiologie, Nuklearmedizin und Molekulare BildgebungHerz- und Diabeteszentrum NRWBad OeynhausenDeutschland
  2. 2.Klinik für Kardiologie und AngiologieMedizinische Hochschule HannoverHannoverDeutschland
  3. 3.Klinik für NuklearmedizinMedizinische Hochschule HannoverHannoverDeutschland
  4. 4.Klinik für KardiologieKliniken Maria Hilf GmbHMönchengladbachDeutschland
  5. 5.Praxisklinik Herz und GefäßeDresdenDeutschland
  6. 6.Universitätsklinik für Radiologie und NuklearmedizinMedizinische Universität WienWienÖsterreich
  7. 7.Klinik für Kardiologie und AngiologieUniversität DüsseldorfDüsseldorfDeutschland
  8. 8.Kommission für Klinische Kardiovaskuläre MedizinDeutsche Gesellschaft für KardiologieDüsseldorfDeutschland
  9. 9.Klinik für Kardiologie und AngiologieUniversitätsklinikum EssenEssenDeutschland
  10. 10.Klinik für NuklearmedizinUniversitätsklinikum EssenEssenDeutschland
  11. 11.Klinik für NuklearmedizinKliniken Maria Hilf GmbHMönchengladbachDeutschland
  12. 12.Klinik für NuklearmedizinUniversitätsklinikum MünsterMünsterDeutschland
  13. 13.European Institute for Molecular Imaging – EIMIWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterMünsterDeutschland
  14. 14.Kardiologische GemeinschaftspraxisMünchenDeutschland
  15. 15.Medizinische KlinikKlinikum Pforzheim GmbHPforzheimDeutschland

Personalised recommendations