Current and Future Status of PET Myocardial Perfusion Tracers

  • Christoph Rischpler
  • Takahiro Higuchi
  • Stephan G. Nekolla
Cardiac Nuclear Imaging (A Cuocolo, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Cardiac Nuclear Imaging


Over the last 2 decades, positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging has been proven to be highly valuable for the detection and grading of coronary artery disease. Furthermore, its diagnostic accuracy seems to outperform on single photon emission computed tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging not least because of the potential of absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow. In a clinical setting, however, the use of PET is still limited. One major hampering factor is the lack of an ideal PET perfusion tracer for daily clinical routine. This article aims to review the currently available PET myocardial perfusion tracers as well as the question if those tracers that are being developed and about to be translated into clinics have the potential to overcome this issue.


Myocardial perfusion imaging PET tracers 13N-ammonia Rubidium-82 15O-water 18F-flurpiridaz 


Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Christoph Rischpler, Takahiro Higuchi, and Stephan Nekolla declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Velagaleti RS, Pencina MJ, Murabito JM, Wang TJ, Parikh NI, D'Agostino RB, et al. Long-term trends in the incidence of heart failure after myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2008;118:2057–62.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, Adams RJ, Berry JD, Brown TM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2011 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123:e18–e209.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kannel WB, Schatzkin A. Sudden death: lessons from subsets in population studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1985;5(6 Suppl):141B–9B.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1979;300:1350–8.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilson PW, D'Agostino RB, Levy D, Belanger AM, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;97:1837–47.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pryor DB, Harrell Jr FE, Lee KL, Califf RM, Rosati RA. Estimating the likelihood of significant coronary artery disease. Am J Med. 1983;75:771–80.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kannel WB, D'Agostino RB, Sullivan L, Wilson PW. Concept and usefulness of cardiovascular risk profiles. Am Heart J. 2004;148:16–26.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Task Force M, Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, Andreotti F, Arden C, et al. 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. 2013;34:2949–3003.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, Berra K, Blankenship JC, Dallas AP, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:e44–e164.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van't Veer M, et al. Fractional flow reserve vs angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213–24.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nandalur KR, Dwamena BA, Choudhri AF, Nandalur SR, Reddy P, Carlos RC. Diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography in the detection of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:444–51.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Russell III RR, Zaret BL. Nuclear cardiology: present and future. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2006;31:557–629.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bateman TM, Heller GV, McGhie AI, Friedman JD,case JA, Bryngelson JR, 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. 2006;13:24–33.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flotats A, Bravo PE, Fukushima K, Chaudhry MA, Merrill J, Bengel FM. 82Rb PET myocardial perfusion imaging is superior to (9)(9)mTc-labelled agent SPECT in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1233–9.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gaemperli O, Bengel FM, Kaufmann PA. Cardiac hybrid imaging. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:2100–8.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muzik O, Beanlands RS, Hutchins GD, Mangner 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.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sanchez-Crespo A, Andreo P, Larsson SA. Positron flight in human tissues and its influence on PET image spatial resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:44–51.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rust TC, DiBella EV, McGann CJ, Christian PE, Hoffman JM, Kadrmas DJ. Rapid dual-injection single-scan 13N-ammonia PET for quantification of rest and stress myocardial blood flows. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:5347–62.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Degli Esposti M. Inhibitors of NADH-ubiquinone reductase: an overview. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1998;1364:222–35.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yalamanchili P, Wexler E, Hayes M, Yu M, Bozek J, Kagan M, et al. Mechanism of uptake and retention of F-18 BMS-747158-02 in cardiomyocytes: a novel PET myocardial imaging agent. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:782–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yu M, Guaraldi MT, Mistry M, Kagan M, McDonald JL, Drew K, et al. BMS-747158-02: a novel PET myocardial perfusion imaging agent. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:789–98.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huisman MC, Higuchi T, Reder S, Nekolla SG, Poethko T, Wester HJ, et al. Initial characterization of an 18F-labeled myocardial perfusion tracer. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:630–6.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Higuchi T, Nekolla SG, Huisman MM, Reder S, Poethko T, Yu M, et al. A new 18F-labeled myocardial PET tracer: myocardial uptake after permanent and transient coronary occlusion in rats. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1715–22.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sherif HM, Saraste A, Weidl E, Weber AW, Higuchi T, Reder S, et al. Evaluation of a novel (18)F-labeled positron-emission tomography perfusion tracer for the assessment of myocardial infarct size in rats. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:77–84.Google Scholar
  26. 26.•
    Sherif HM, Nekolla SG, Saraste A, Reder S, Yu M, Robinson S, et al. Simplified quantification of myocardial flow reserve with flurpiridaz F 18: validation with microspheres in a pig model. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:617–24. First study investigating 18F-flurpiridaz in large animals. Furthermore, a simplified method for flow quantification (using SUVs) was evaluated.Google Scholar
  27. 27.••
    Berman DS, Maddahi J, Tamarappoo BK, Czernin J, Taillerfer R, Udelson JE, 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. 2013;61:469–77. Clinical phase-2 study evaluating the novel PET MPI tracer 18F-flurpiridaz. 18F-flurpiridaz PET MPI was safe and superior in comparison to SPECT MPI regarding image quality, interpretative certainty, and overall CAD diagnosis.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Madar I, Ravert HT, Du Y, Hilton J, Volokh L, Dannals RF, et al. Characterization of uptake of the new PET imaging compound 18F-fluorobenzyl triphenylphosphonium in dog myocardium. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1359–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Madar I, Ravert H, Dipaula A, Du Y, Dannals RF, Becker L. Assessment of severity of coronary artery stenosis in a canine model using the PET agent 18F-fluorobenzyl triphenyl phosphonium: comparison with 99mTc–tetrofosmin. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1021–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Higuchi T, Fukushima K, Rischpler C, Isoda T, Javadi MS, Ravert H, et al. Stable delineation of the ischemic area by the PET perfusion tracer 18F-fluorobenzyl triphenyl phosphonium after transient coronary occlusion. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:965–9.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ilovich O, Billauer H, Dotan S, Freedman NM, Bocher M, Mishani E. Novel and simple carbon-11-labeled ammonium salts as PET agents for myocardial perfusion imaging. Mol Imaging Biol. 2011;13:128–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ilovich O, Abourbeh G, Bocher M, Freedman N, Billauer H, Dotan S, et al. Structure—activity relationship and preclinical evaluation of carbon-11-labeled ammonium salts as PET—myocardial perfusion imaging agents. Mol Imaging Biol. 2012;14:625–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jacobson O, Abourbeh G, Tsvirkun D, Mishani E. Rat imaging and in vivo stability studies using [11C]-dimethyl-diphenyl ammonium, a candidate agent for PET-myocardial perfusion imaging. Nucl Med Biol. 2013;40:967–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Rischpler
    • 1
  • Takahiro Higuchi
    • 2
  • Stephan G. Nekolla
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuklearmedizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Department of Nuclear MedicineTechnical University MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations