Advertisement

Cardiac Positron Emission Tomography: a Clinical Perspective

  • Christian L. Polte
  • Iris Burck
  • Peter Gjertsson
  • Milan Lomsky
  • Stephan G. Nekolla
  • Eike Nagel
Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (E Nagel and V Puntmann, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Cardiac Magnetic Resonance

Abstract

Cardiac positron emission tomography is a powerful, quantitative, non-invasive imaging modality, which adds valuable diagnostic and prognostic information to the clinical work-up. Myocardial perfusion and viability imaging are, as a result of continuously growing evidence, established clinical indications that may be cost-effective, due to the high diagnostic accuracy of cardiac positron emission tomography, despite high single-test costs. In the field of inflammation imaging, new indications are entering the clinical arena, which may contribute to a better diagnosis and overall patient care, as for instance in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis, prosthetic valve endocarditis and cardiac device infections. This review will discuss the individual strengths and weaknesses of cardiac positron emission tomography and, hence, the resulting clinical usefulness based on the current evidence for an individualized, patient-centered imaging approach.

Keywords

Positron emission tomography Myocardial perfusion Myocardial viability Cardiovascular inflammation Patient-centered imaging 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Erika Fagman, Department of Radiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg/Sweden, for providing valuable images for this article.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Christian L. Polte, Iris Burck, Milan Lomsky, Peter Gjertsson, and Stephan G. Nekolla declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Eike Nagel reports research support from Siemens Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, and Philips Healthcare; non-financial support from TomTec, CVI42, and MEDIS, during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Bayer Healthcare, outside the submitted work.

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.

References

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

  1. 1.
    Vogel R, Indermuhle A, Reinhardt J, Meier P, Siegrist PT, Namdar M, et al. The quantification of absolute myocardial perfusion in humans by contrast echocardiography: algorithm and validation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:754–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baer FM, Voth E, Deutsch HJ, Schneider CA, Schicha H, Sechtem U. Assessment of viable myocardium by dobutamine transesophageal echocardiography and comparison with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;24:343–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonow RO, Dilsizian V, Cuocolo A, Bacharach SL. Identification of viable myocardium in patients with chronic coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction. Comparison of thallium scintigraphy with reinjection and PET imaging with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose. Circulation. 1991;83:26–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dilsizian V, Arrighi JA, Diodati JG, Quyyumi AA, Alavi K, Bacharach SL, et al. Myocardial viability in patients with chronic coronary artery disease. Comparison of 99mTc-sestamibi with thallium reinjection and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose. Circulation. 1994;89:578–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schwitter J, Nanz D, Kneifel S, Bertschinger K, Buchi M, Knusel PR, et al. Assessment of myocardial perfusion in coronary artery disease by magnetic resonance: a comparison with positron emission tomography and coronary angiography. Circulation. 2001;103:2230–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baer FM, Voth E, Schneider CA, Theissen P, Schicha H, Sechtem U. Comparison of low-dose dobutamine-gradient-echo magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with chronic coronary artery disease. A functional and morphological approach to the detection of residual myocardial viability. Circulation. 1995;91:1006–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Knuesel PR, Nanz D, Wyss C, Buechi M, Kaufmann PA, von Schulthess GK, et al. Characterization of dysfunctional myocardium by positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance: relation to functional outcome after revascularization. Circulation. 2003;108:1095–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Le Guludec D, Lautamaki R, Knuuti J, Bax JJ, Bengel FM. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lautamaki R, George RT, Kitagawa K, Higuchi T, Merrill J, Voicu C, et al. Rubidium-82 PET-CT for quantitative assessment of myocardial blood flow: validation in a canine model of coronary artery stenosis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:576–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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. 2012;14:208–16.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slomka PJ, Berman DS, Germano G. New cardiac cameras: single-photon emission CT and PET. Semin Nucl Med. 2014;44:232–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slomka PJ, Pan T, Berman DS, Germano G. Advances in SPECT and PET hardware. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;57:566–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koepfli P, Hany TF, Wyss CA, Namdar M, Burger C, Konstantinidis AV, et al. CT attenuation correction for myocardial perfusion quantification using a PET/CT hybrid scanner. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:537–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Schelbert HR, Phelps ME, Hoffman EJ, Huang SC, Selin CE, Kuhl DE. Regional myocardial perfusion assessed with N-13 labeled ammonia and positron emission computerized axial tomography. Am J Cardiol. 1979;43:209–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schelbert HR, Phelps ME, Huang SC, MacDonald NS, Hansen H, Selin C, et al. N-13 ammonia as an indicator of myocardial blood flow. Circulation. 1981;63:1259–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bergmann SR, Hack S, Tewson T, Welch MJ, Sobel BE. The dependence of accumulation of 13NH3 by myocardium on metabolic factors and its implications for quantitative assessment of perfusion. Circulation. 1980;61:34–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krivokapich J, Huang SC, Phelps ME, MacDonald NS, Shine KI. Dependence of 13NH3 myocardial extraction and clearance on flow and metabolism. Am J Physiol. 1982;242:H536–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nienaber CA, Ratib O, Gambhir SS, Krivokapich J, Huang SC, Phelps ME, et al. A quantitative index of regional blood flow in canine myocardium derived noninvasively with N-13 ammonia and dynamic positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;17:260–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yoshida K, Mullani N, Gould KL. Coronary flow and flow reserve by PET simplified for clinical applications using rubidium-82 or nitrogen-13-ammonia. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1701–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mack RE, Nolting DD, Hogancamp CE, Bing RJ. Myocardial extraction of Rb-86 in the rabbit. Am J Physiol. 1959;197:1175–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Becker L, Ferreira R, Thomas M. Comparison of 86Rb and microsphere estimates of left ventricular bloodflow distribution. J Nucl Med. 1974;15:969–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lortie M, Beanlands RS, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goldstein RA, Mullani NA, Marani SK, Fisher DJ, Gould KL, O’Brien Jr HA. Myocardial perfusion with rubidium-82. II. Effects of metabolic and pharmacologic interventions. J Nucl Med. 1983;24:907–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Selwyn AP, Allan RM, L’Abbate A, Horlock P, Camici P, Clark J, et al. Relation between regional myocardial uptake of rubidium-82 and perfusion: absolute reduction of cation uptake in ischemia. Am J Cardiol. 1982;50:112–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bol A, Melin JA, Vanoverschelde JL, Baudhuin T, Vogelaers D, De Pauw M, et al. Direct comparison of [13N]ammonia and [15O]water estimates of perfusion with quantification of regional myocardial blood flow by microspheres. Circulation. 1993;87:512–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kajander SA, Joutsiniemi E, Saraste M, Pietila M, Ukkonen H, Saraste A, et al. Clinical value of absolute quantification of myocardial perfusion with (15)O-water in coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:678–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chow BJ, Beanlands RS, Lee A, DaSilva JN, deKemp RA, Alkahtani A, et al. Treadmill exercise produces larger perfusion defects than dipyridamole stress N-13 ammonia positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:411–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chow BJ, Ananthasubramaniam K, dekemp RA, Dalipaj MM, Beanlands RS, Ruddy TD. Comparison of treadmill exercise versus dipyridamole stress with myocardial perfusion imaging using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1227–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wyss CA, Koepfli P, Mikolajczyk K, Burger C, von Schulthess GK, Kaufmann PA. Bicycle exercise stress in PET for assessment of coronary flow reserve: repeatability and comparison with adenosine stress. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:146–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gallagher BM, Ansari A, Atkins H, Casella V, Christman DR, Fowler JS, et al. Radiopharmaceuticals XXVII. 18F-labeled 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-d-glucose as a radiopharmaceutical for measuring regional myocardial glucose metabolism in vivo: tissue distribution and imaging studies in animals. J Nucl Med. 1977;18:990–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ratib O, Phelps ME, Huang SC, Henze E, Selin CE, Schelbert HR. Positron tomography with deoxyglucose for estimating local myocardial glucose metabolism. J Nucl Med. 1982;23:577–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bing RJ. Cardiac metabolism. Physiol Rev. 1965;45:171–213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Camici P, Ferrannini E, Opie LH. Myocardial metabolism in ischemic heart disease: basic principles and application to imaging by positron emission tomography. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1989;32:217–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mochizuki T, Tsukamoto E, Kuge Y, Kanegae K, Zhao S, Hikosaka K, et al. FDG uptake and glucose transporter subtype expressions in experimental tumor and inflammation models. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1551–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kubota R, Yamada S, Kubota K, Ishiwata K, Tamahashi N, Ido T. Intratumoral distribution of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in vivo: high accumulation in macrophages and granulation tissues studied by microautoradiography. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:1972–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gamelli RL, Liu H, He LK, Hofmann CA. Augmentations of glucose uptake and glucose transporter-1 in macrophages following thermal injury and sepsis in mice. J Leukoc Biol. 1996;59:639–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Knuuti MJ, Nuutila P, Ruotsalainen U, Saraste M, Harkonen R, Ahonen A, et al. Euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp and oral glucose load in stimulating myocardial glucose utilization during positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:1255–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Knuuti MJ, Yki-Jarvinen H, Voipio-Pulkki LM, Maki M, Ruotsalainen U, Harkonen R, et al. Enhancement of myocardial [fluorine-18]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by a nicotinic acid derivative. J Nucl Med. 1994;35:989–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ishimaru S, Tsujino I, Takei T, Tsukamoto E, Sakaue S, Kamigaki M, et al. Focal uptake on 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography images indicates cardiac involvement of sarcoidosis. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:1538–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ambrosini V, Zompatori M, Fasano L, Nanni C, Nava S, Rubello D, et al. (18)F-FDG PET/CT for the assessment of disease extension and activity in patients with sarcoidosis: results of a preliminary prospective study. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:e171–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Williams G, Kolodny GM. Suppression of myocardial 18F-FDG uptake by preparing patients with a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:W151–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cheng VY, Slomka PJ, Ahlen M, Thomson LE, Waxman AD, Berman DS. Impact of carbohydrate restriction with and without fatty acid loading on myocardial 18F-FDG uptake during PET: a randomized controlled trial. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:286–91.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Harisankar CN, Mittal BR, Agrawal KL, Abrar ML, Bhattacharya A. Utility of high fat and low carbohydrate diet in suppressing myocardial FDG uptake. J Nucl Cardiol. 2011;18:926–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, Lee C, Feigelson HS, Flynn M, et al. Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996–2010. JAMA. 2012;307:2400–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Ross JS, Chen J, Ting HH, et al. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:849–57.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chen J, Einstein AJ, Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Ross JS, et al. Cumulative exposure to ionizing radiation from diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac imaging procedures: a population-based analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:702–11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation. 2007;116:1290–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hendee WR, O’Connor MK. Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy. Radiology. 2012;264:312–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cerqueira MD, Allman KC, Ficaro EP, Hansen CL, Nichols KJ, Thompson RC, et al. Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:709–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, Andreotti F, Arden C, Budaj A, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    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: executive summary: 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. Circulation. 2012;126:3097–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Genders TS, Steyerberg EW, Alkadhi H, Leschka S, Desbiolles L, Nieman K, et al. A clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: validation, updating, and extension. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:1316–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mc Ardle 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. 2012;60:1828–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jaarsma C, Leiner T, Bekkers SC, Crijns HJ, Wildberger JE, Nagel E, et al. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive myocardial perfusion imaging using single-photon emission computed tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance, and positron emission tomography imaging for the detection of obstructive coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1719–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.•
    Takx RA, Blomberg BA, El Aidi H, Habets J, de Jong PA, Nagel E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion imaging compared to invasive coronary angiography with fractional flow reserve meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:e002666. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion imaging by single-photon emission computed tomography, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography and computed tomography using invasive coronary angiography with fractional flow reserve as reference.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lima RS, Watson DD, Goode AR, Siadaty MS, Ragosta M, Beller GA, et al. Incremental value of combined perfusion and function over perfusion alone by gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of severe three-vessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:64–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Berman DS, Kang X, Slomka PJ, Gerlach J, de Yang L, Hayes SW, et al. Underestimation of extent of ischemia by gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with left main coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:521–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Beller GA. Underestimation of coronary artery disease with SPECT perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:151–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ragosta M, Bishop AH, Lipson LC, Watson DD, Gimple LW, Sarembock IJ, et al. Comparison between angiography and fractional flow reserve versus single-photon emission computed tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging for determining lesion significance in patients with multivessel coronary disease. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:896–902.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Yokota S, Ottervanger JP, Mouden M, Timmer JR, Knollema S, Jager PL. Prevalence, location, and extent of significant coronary artery disease in patients with normal myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014;21:284–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Nishimura S, Mahmarian JJ, Boyce TM, Verani MS. Quantitative thallium-201 single-photon emission computed tomography during maximal pharmacologic coronary vasodilation with adenosine for assessing coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;18:736–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Chareonthaitawee P, Kaufmann PA, Rimoldi O, Camici PG. Heterogeneity of resting and hyperemic myocardial blood flow in healthy humans. Cardiovasc Res. 2001;50:151–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Camici PG, Rimoldi OE. The clinical value of myocardial blood flow measurement. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1076–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Uren NG, Melin JA, De Bruyne B, Wijns W, Baudhuin T, Camici PG. Relation between myocardial blood flow and the severity of coronary-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1782–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    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;2:846–54.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Dorbala S, Di Carli MF, Beanlands RS, Merhige ME, Williams BA, Veledar E, et al. Prognostic value of stress myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography: results from a multicenter observational registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:176–84.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    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
  76. 76.
    Rischpler C, Higuchi T, Fukushima K, Javadi MS, Merrill J, Nekolla SG, et al. Transient ischemic dilation ratio in 82Rb PET myocardial perfusion imaging: normal values and significance as a diagnostic and prognostic marker. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:723–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Lertsburapa K, Ahlberg AW, Bateman TM, Katten D, Volker L, Cullom SJ, et al. Independent and incremental prognostic value of left ventricular ejection fraction determined by stress gated rubidium 82 PET imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:745–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Abraham A, Kass M, Ruddy TD, deKemp RA, Lee AK, Ling MC, et al. Right and left ventricular uptake with Rb-82 PET myocardial perfusion imaging: markers of left main or 3 vessel disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:52–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Fukushima K, Javadi MS, Higuchi T, Lautamaki 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Berman DS. 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. 2003;107:2900–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Hachamovitch R, Rozanski A, Hayes SW, Thomson LE, Germano G, Friedman JD, et al. Predicting therapeutic benefit from myocardial revascularization procedures: are measurements of both resting left ventricular ejection fraction and stress-induced myocardial ischemia necessary? J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13:768–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hachamovitch R, Rozanski A, Shaw LJ, Stone GW, Thomson LE, Friedman JD, et al. Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:1012–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.•
    Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Picard MH, Friedrich MG, Kwong RY, Stone GW, et al. Comparative definitions for moderate-severe ischemia in stress nuclear, echocardiography, and magnetic resonance imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:593–604. State-of-the-art paper on the comparative definitions of moderate-severe ischemia in stress nuclear, echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.••
    Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, Collet JP, Cremer J, Falk V. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: 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). Eur Heart J. 2014;35(et al):2541–619. Current European guidelines on coronary revascularization therapy.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, Smith PK, Spertus JA. ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/SCCT 2012 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization focused update: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:857–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Beanlands RS, Ruddy TD, deKemp RA, Iwanochko RM, Coates G, Freeman M, et al. Positron emission tomography and recovery following revascularization (PARR-1): the importance of scar and the development of a prediction rule for the degree of recovery of left ventricular function. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1735–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Beanlands RS, Nichol G, Huszti E, Humen D, Racine N, Freeman M, et al. F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging-assisted management of patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and suspected coronary disease: a randomized, controlled trial (PARR-2). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:2002–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Tamaki N, Yonekura Y, Yamashita K, Saji H, Magata Y, Senda M, et al. Positron emission tomography using fluorine-18 deoxyglucose in evaluation of coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol. 1989;64:860–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    vom Dahl J, Eitzman DT, al-Aouar ZR, Kanter HL, Hicks RJ, Deeb GM, et al. Relation of regional function, perfusion, and metabolism in patients with advanced coronary artery disease undergoing surgical revascularization. Circulation. 1994;90:2356–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Di Carli MF, Davidson M, Little R, Khanna S, Mody FV, Brunken RC, et al. Value of metabolic imaging with positron emission tomography for evaluating prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction. Am J Cardiol. 1994;73:527–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    D’Egidio G, Nichol G, Williams KA, Guo A, Garrard L, deKemp R, et al. Increasing benefit from revascularization is associated with increasing amounts of myocardial hibernation: a substudy of the PARR-2 trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:1060–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Inaba Y, Chen JA, Bergmann SR. Quantity of viable myocardium required to improve survival with revascularization in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:646–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Birnie D, de Kemp RA, Tang AS, Ruddy TD, Gollob MH, Guo A, et al. Reduced septal glucose metabolism predicts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:73–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Schinkel AF, Bax JJ, Poldermans D, Elhendy A, Ferrari R, Rahimtoola SH. Hibernating myocardium: diagnosis and patient outcomes. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2007;32:375–410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Underwood SR, de Bondt P, Flotats A, Marcasa C, Pinto F, Schaefer W, et al. The current and future status of nuclear cardiology: a consensus report. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;15:949–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Beanlands RS, Hendry PJ, Masters RG, deKemp RA, Woodend K, Ruddy TD. Delay in revascularization is associated with increased mortality rate in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and viable myocardium on fluorine 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging. Circulation. 1998;98:II51–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Tarakji KG, Brunken R, McCarthy PM, Al-Chekakie MO, Abdel-Latif A, Pothier CE, et al. Myocardial viability testing and the effect of early intervention in patients with advanced left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Circulation. 2006;113:230–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Abraham A, Nichol G, Williams KA, Guo A, deKemp RA, Garrard L, et al. 18F-FDG PET imaging of myocardial viability in an experienced center with access to 18F-FDG and integration with clinical management teams: the Ottawa-FIVE substudy of the PARR 2 trial. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:567–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    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
  105. 105.
    Fallavollita JA, Heavey BM, Luisi Jr AJ, Michalek SM, Baldwa S, Mashtare Jr TL, et al. Regional myocardial sympathetic denervation predicts the risk of sudden cardiac arrest in ischemic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:141–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    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
  107. 107.
    Joshi NV, Vesey AT, Williams MC, Shah AS, Calvert PA, Craighead FH, et al. 18F-fluoride positron emission tomography for identification of ruptured and high-risk coronary atherosclerotic plaques: a prospective clinical trial. Lancet. 2014;383:705–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Erba PA, Sollini M, Lazzeri E, Mariani G. FDG-PET in cardiac infections. Semin Nucl Med. 2013;43:377–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Hiari N, Rudd JH. FDG PET imaging and cardiovascular inflammation. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2011;13:43–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Millar BC, Prendergast BD, Alavi A, Moore JE. 18FDG-positron emission tomography (PET) has a role to play in the diagnosis and therapy of infective endocarditis and cardiac device infection. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167:1724–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.•
    Bruun NE, Habib G, Thuny F, Sogaard P. Cardiac imaging in infectious endocarditis. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:624–32. Overview of the different non-invasive imaging modalities in the diagnosis of infectious endocarditis.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Sobic-Saranovic D, Artiko V, Obradovic V. FDG PET imaging in sarcoidosis. Semin Nucl Med. 2013;43:404–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.•
    Schatka I, Bengel FM. Advanced imaging of cardiac sarcoidosis. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:99–106. Overview of the clinical usefulness of 18 F-FDG PET in cardiac sarcoidosis in relation to other imaging modalities.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Skali H, Schulman AR, Dorbala S. 18F-FDG PET/CT for the assessment of myocardial sarcoidosis. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2013;15:352.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Hamzeh NY, Wamboldt FS, Weinberger HD. Management of cardiac sarcoidosis in the United States: a Delphi study. Chest. 2012;141:154–62.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.••
    Birnie DH, Sauer WH, Bogun F, Cooper JM, Culver DA, Duvernoy CS, et al. HRS expert consensus statement on the diagnosis and management of arrhythmias associated with cardiac sarcoidosis. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11:1305–23. Consensus document on the diagnosis and clinical management of arrhythmias associated with cardiac sarcoidosis.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Youssef G, Leung E, Mylonas I, Nery P, Williams K, Wisenberg G, et al. The use of 18F-FDG PET in the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis: a systematic review and metaanalysis including the Ontario experience. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:241–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Tahara N, Tahara A, Nitta Y, Kodama N, Mizoguchi M, Kaida H, et al. Heterogeneous myocardial FDG uptake and the disease activity in cardiac sarcoidosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:1219–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.•
    Blankstein R, Osborne M, Naya M, Waller A, Kim CK, Murthy VL, et al. Cardiac positron emission tomography enhances prognostic assessments of patients with suspected cardiac sarcoidosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:329–36. First study to report the relation between cardiac PET findings and clinical outcome in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Saby L, Le Dolley Y, Laas O, Tessonnier L, Cammilleri S, Casalta JP, et al. Early diagnosis of abscess in aortic bioprosthetic valve by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography. Circulation. 2012;126:e217–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Ploux S, Riviere A, Amraoui S, Whinnett Z, Barandon L, Lafitte S, et al. Positron emission tomography in patients with suspected pacing system infections may play a critical role in difficult cases. Heart Rhythm. 2011;8:1478–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Bensimhon L, Lavergne T, Hugonnet F, Mainardi JL, Latremouille C, Maunoury C, et al. Whole body [(18) F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for the diagnosis of pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator infection: a preliminary prospective study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011;17:836–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Sarrazin JF, Philippon F, Tessier M, Guimond J, Molin F, Champagne J, et al. Usefulness of fluorine-18 positron emission tomography/computed tomography for identification of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1616–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Tlili G, Amroui S, Mesguich C, Riviere A, Bordachar P, Hindie E, et al. High performances of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT in cardiac implantable device infections: a study of 40 patients. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:787–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Saby L, Laas O, Habib G, Cammilleri S, Mancini J, Tessonnier L, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography for diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis: increased valvular 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake as a novel major criterion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:2374–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Patterson RE, Eisner RL, Horowitz SF. Comparison of cost-effectiveness and utility of exercise ECG, single photon emission computed tomography, positron emission tomography, and coronary angiography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1995;91:54–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Gould KL, Goldstein RA, Mullani NA. Economic analysis of clinical positron emission tomography of the heart with rubidium-82. J Nucl Med. 1989;30:707–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Merhige ME, Breen WJ, Shelton V, Houston T, D’Arcy BJ, Perna AF. Impact of myocardial perfusion imaging with PET and (82)Rb on downstream invasive procedure utilization, costs, and outcomes in coronary disease management. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1069–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Beanlands RS, deKemp RA, Smith S, Johansen H, Ruddy TD. F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging alters clinical decision making in patients with impaired ventricular function. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79:1092–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Jacklin PB, Barrington SF, Roxburgh JC, Jackson G, Sariklis D, West PA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of preoperative positron emission tomography in ischemic heart disease. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:1403–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian L. Polte
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Iris Burck
    • 4
  • Peter Gjertsson
    • 5
  • Milan Lomsky
    • 5
  • Stephan G. Nekolla
    • 6
  • Eike Nagel
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of CardiologySahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Institute of MedicineThe Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Institute for Experimental and Translational Cardiovascular Imaging, DZHK Centre for Cardiovascular ImagingUniversity Hospital FrankfurtFrankfurt/MainGermany
  4. 4.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity Hospital FrankfurtFrankfurt/MainGermany
  5. 5.Department of Clinical PhysiologySahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  6. 6.Department of Nuclear MedicineTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations