Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Improving Nuclear Cardiology Practice

  • Cardiac Nuclear Imaging (A Cuocolo, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the past few years there have been a number of procedural and technical advances in the field of Nuclear Cardiology which have helped modernize the field. Competing diagnostic modalities, concerns over medical radiation exposure, and rising health care expenditure have all played a role in fostering these new innovations. This article attempts to concisely review easily implemented improvements in stress protocols, upgrades in imaging hardware and software, and suggestions for the rational utilization of available resources which if implemented, can greatly improve nuclear cardiology practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  1. Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF, 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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:2201–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bourque JM, Holland BH, Watson DD, Beller GA. Achieving an exercise workload of > or = 10 metabolic equivalents predicts a very low risk of inducible ischemia: does myocardial perfusion imaging have a role? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:538–45.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bourque JM, Charlton GT, Holland BH, Belyea CM, Watson DD, Beller GA. Prognosis in patients achieving >/=10 METS on exercise stress testing: was SPECT imaging useful? J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;18:230–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee DS, Verocai F, Husain M, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes are predicted by exercise-stress myocardial perfusion imaging: impact on death, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization procedures. Am Heart J. 2011;161:900–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. LaMonte MJ, Fitzgerald SJ, Levine BD, et al. Coronary artery calcium, exercise tolerance, and CHD events in asymptomatic men. Atherosclerosis. 2006;189:157–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fine NM, Pellikka PA, Scott CG, Gharacholou SM, McCully RB. Characteristics and outcomes of patients who achieve high workload (>/=10 metabolic equivalents) during treadmill exercise echocardiography. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88:1408–19. This examination of patients achieving high work load found that echocardiographic results did not provide significant incremental value for these patients.

  7. Berman DS, Kang X, Slomka PJ, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shaw LJ, Hendel RC, Heller GV, Borges-Neto S, Cerqueira M, Berman DS. Prognostic estimation of coronary artery disease risk with resting perfusion abnormalities and stress ischemia on myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:762–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rozanski A, Gransar H, Hayes SW, et al. Temporal trends in the frequency of inducible myocardial ischemia during cardiac stress testing: 1991 to 2009. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1054–65. This report described the trend of decreasing prevalence of abnormal SPECT MPI results over an almost 20 year time period.

  10. Duvall WL, Levine EJ, Moonthungal S, Fardanesh M, Croft LB, Henzlova MJ. A hypothetical protocol for the provisional use of perfusion imaging with exercise stress testing. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:739–47. A description of a stress protocol which would withhold imaging in patients achieving a high work load.

  11. Shaw LJ, Mieres JH, Hendel RH, et al. Comparative effectiveness of exercise electrocardiography with or without myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography in women with suspected coronary artery disease: results from the What Is the Optimal Method for Ischemia Evaluation in Women (WOMEN) trial. Circulation. 2011;124:1239–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Shaw LJ, et al. Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1998;97:535–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Henzlova MJ, Croft LB, Duvall WL. Stress-only imaging: faster, cheaper, less radiation. So what's the hold up? J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:17–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gibbons RJ, Hodge DO, Berman DS, et al. Long-term outcome of patients with intermediate-risk exercise electrocardiograms who do not have myocardial perfusion defects on radionuclide imaging. Circulation. 1999;100:2140–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shaw LJ, Hendel R, Borges-Neto S, et al. Prognostic value of normal exercise and adenosine (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin SPECT imaging: results from the multicenter registry of 4,728 patients. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:134–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chang SM, Nabi F, Xu J, Raza U, Mahmarian JJ. Normal stress-only versus standard stress/rest myocardial perfusion imaging: similar patient mortality with reduced radiation exposure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:221–30. This large cohort study demonstrated a benign prognosis in patients who had a normal stress-only protocol.

  18. Duvall WL, Wijetunga MN, Klein TM, et al. The prognosis of a normal stress-only Tc-99m myocardial perfusion imaging study. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:370–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Duvall WL, Baber U, Levine EJ, Croft LB, Henzlova MJ. A model for the prediction of a successful stress-first Tc-99m SPECT MPI. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:1124–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Henzlova MJ, Cerqueira MD, Mahmarian JJ, Yao SS. Stress protocols and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13:e80–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Phillips L, Wang JW, Pfeffer B, et al. Clinical role of the Duke Activity Status Index in the selection of the optimal type of stress myocardial perfusion imaging study in patients with known or suspected ischemic heart disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2011;18:1015–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Parker MW, Morales DC, Slim HB, et al. A strategy of symptom-limited exercise with regadenoson-as-needed for stress myocardial perfusion imaging: a randomized controlled trial. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:185–96. Prospective study demonstrated similar side-effects and nuclear image quality with either dipyridamole plus exercise or exercise plus regadenoson.

  23. Ross MI, Wu E, Wilkins JT, et al. Safety and feasibility of adjunctive regadenoson injection at peak exercise during exercise myocardial perfusion imaging: the Both Exercise and Regadenoson Stress Test (BERST) trial. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:197–204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Thompson RC, Patil H, Thompson EC, et al. Regadenoson pharmacologic stress for myocardial perfusion imaging: a three-way comparison between regadenoson administered at peak exercise, during walk recovery, or no-exercise. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:214–21. quiz 22-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. US Food and Drug Administration. Drug Saefty Communications. FDA warns of rare but serious risk of heart attack and death with cardiac nuclear stress drugs Lexiscan (regadenoson) and Adenoscan (adenosine). http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm375654.htm; 2013.

  26. Borges-Neto S, Pagnanelli RA, Shaw LK, et al. Clinical results of a novel wide beam reconstruction method for shortening scan time of Tc-99m cardiac SPECT perfusion studies. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:555–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Travin MI. Cardiac cameras. Semin Nucl Med. 2011;41:182–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. DePuey EG, Gadiraju R, Clark J, Thompson L, Anstett F, Shwartz SC. Ordered subset expectation maximization and wide beam reconstruction "half-time" gated myocardial perfusion SPECT functional imaging: a comparison to "full-time" filtered backprojection. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:547–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bateman TM, Heller GV, McGhie AI, et al. Multicenter investigation comparing a highly efficient half-time stress-only attenuation correction approach against standard rest-stress Tc-99m SPECT imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:726–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Valenta I, Treyer V, Husmann L, et al. New reconstruction algorithm allows shortened acquisition time for myocardial perfusion SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;37:750–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. DePuey EG, Ata P, Wray R, Friedman M. Very low-activity stress/high-activity rest, single-day myocardial perfusion SPECT with a conventional sodium iodide camera and wide beam reconstruction processing. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:931–44. A study examining the potential of ½ time imaging software to achieve dose reduction in routine use.

  32. Slomka PJ, Patton JA, Berman DS, Germano G. Advances in technical aspects of myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:255–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Garcia EV, Faber TL, Esteves FP. Cardiac dedicated ultrafast SPECT cameras: new designs and clinical implications. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:210–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sharir T, Ben-Haim S, Merzon K, Prochorov V, Dickman D, Berman DS. High-speed myocardial perfusion imaging initial clinical comparison with conventional dual detector anger camera imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1:156–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Esteves FP, Raggi P, Folks RD, et al. Novel solid-state-detector dedicated cardiac camera for fast myocardial perfusion imaging: multicenter comparison with standard dual detector cameras. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:927–34.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sharir T, Slomka PJ, Hayes SW, et al. Multicenter trial of high-speed versus conventional single-photon emission computed tomography imaging: quantitative results of myocardial perfusion and left ventricular function. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:1965–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Herzog BA, Buechel RR, Katz R, et al. Nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging with a cadmium-zinc-telluride detector technique: optimized protocol for scan time reduction. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:46–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Buechel RR, Herzog BA, Husmann L, et al. Ultrafast nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging on a new gamma camera with semiconductor detector technique: first clinical validation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:773–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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. Review article on recent technological advances in Nuclear Cardiology.

  40. Di Carli MF, Dorbala S, Curillova Z, et al. Relationship between CT coronary angiography and stress perfusion imaging in patients with suspected ischemic heart disease assessed by integrated PET-CT imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:799–809.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hulten EA, Carbonaro S, Petrillo SP, Mitchell JD, Villines TC. Prognostic value of cardiac computed tomography angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:1237–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Youssef G, Kalia N, Darabian S, Budoff MJ. Coronary calcium: new insights, recent data, and clinical role. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2012;15:325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Parker MW, Iskandar A, Limone B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of cardiac positron emission tomography versus single photon emission computed tomography for coronary artery disease: a bivariate meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:700–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mc Ardle BA, Dowsley TF, de Kemp 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Dorbala S, Hachamovitch R, Curillova Z, 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lertsburapa K, Ahlberg AW, Bateman TM, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Beanlands RS, Ziadi MC, Williams K. Quantification of myocardial flow reserve using positron emission imaging the journey to clinical use. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:157–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Herzog BA, Husmann L, Valenta I, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Fukushima K, Javadi MS, Higuchi T, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams KA, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, et al. Improved cardiac risk assessment with noninvasive measures of coronary flow reserve. Circulation. 2011;124:2215–24.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Patel MR, Spertus JA, Brindis RG, et al. ACCF proposed method for evaluating the appropriateness of cardiovascular imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:1606–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hendel RC, Patel MR, Allen JM, et al. Appropriate use of cardiovascular technology: 2013 ACCF appropriate use criteria methodology update: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation appropriate use criteria task force. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1305–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Patel MR, White RD, Abbara S, et al. 2013 ACCF/ACR/ASE/ASNC/SCCT/SCMR appropriate utilization of cardiovascular imaging in heart failure: a joint report of the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria Committee and the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:2207–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Wolk MJ, Bailey SR, Doherty JU, et al. ACCF/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2013 Multimodality Appropriate Use Criteria for the Detection and Risk Assessment of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013. Imaging modalities across the spectrum of patient scenarios encountered with ischemic heart disease adjudicated by experts from multiple areas for appropriateness.

  57. Doukky R, Hayes K, Frogge N, et al. Impact of appropriate use on the prognostic value of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging. Circulation. 2013;128:1634–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Gibbons RJ, Miller TD, Hodge D, et al. Application of appropriateness criteria to stress single-photon emission computed tomography sestamibi studies and stress echocardiograms in an academic medical center. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:1283–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Mehta R, Ward RP, Chandra S, et al. Evaluation of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Society of Nuclear Cardiology appropriateness criteria for SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:337–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hendel RC, Cerqueira M, Douglas PS, et al. A multicenter assessment of the use of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging with appropriateness criteria. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:156–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Nelson KH, Willens HJ, Hendel RC. Utilization of radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging in two health care systems: assessment with the 2009 ACCF/ASNC/AHA appropriateness use criteria. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:37–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Choosing Wisely: Five Things Physicians and Patients Should Question. 2012. http://www.choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/5things_12_factsheet_Amer_Soc_Nuc_Cardio.pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2014. Five simple strategies from the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology to reduce the overuse of nuclear cardiac imaging.

  63. Intersocietal Accreditation Commission. The IAC Standards and Guidelines for Nuclear/PET Accreditation. 2012. Ellicott City, MD. Retrieved from: http://www.intersocietal.org/nuclear/Standards/IACNuclearPETStandards2012.pdf. Accessed 2 April 2014.

  64. Shaw LJ, Wang TY, Mahmarian JJ, et al. Registry. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:655–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Williams KA, McKinley AP, ECo ASNC. How the ASNC ImageGuide Registry will guide healthcare policy. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:948–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Matthew W. Parker reports grants from Lantheus Medical Imaging.

William Duvall and Milena J. Henzlova 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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hartford Hospital, 80 Seymour Street, Hartford, CT, 06102, USA

    W. Lane Duvall & Matthew W. Parker

  2. Mount Sinai Medical Center, Box 1030, One Gustave L Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029, USA

    Milena J. Henzlova

Authors
  1. W. Lane Duvall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew W. Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Milena J. Henzlova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Milena J. Henzlova.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Cardiac Nuclear Imaging

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Duvall, W.L., Parker, M.W. & Henzlova, M.J. Improving Nuclear Cardiology Practice. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep 7, 9271 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12410-014-9271-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12410-014-9271-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation