Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 62–70 | Cite as

Advances in quantitative perfusion SPECT imaging

Major Achievements In Nuclear Cardiology: I

Abstract

Quantitative software for myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) has advanced significantly over the last 25 years. The strength and availability of quantitative tools for perfusion SPECT have in many ways provided a competitive advantage to nuclear cardiology compared with other higher-resolution noninvasive imaging modalities for the detection of coronary artery disease. The purpose of this report is to review the advances in quantitative diagnostic software for cardiac SPECT over the past 25 years. The time period ending with the 1980s (“the past”) saw the origins of nuclear cardiology with the development of planar thallium 201 imaging and perfusion SPECT imaging without electrocardiographic gating. The period from 1990 to the present saw the development of gated SPECT imaging providing both perfusion and functional information and attenuation correction SPECT with improved perfusion information. The report concludes with a look into the future, where hybrid multimodality imaging systems may provide a comprehensive noninvasive evaluation with previously unmatched accuracy in a single imaging session.

Keywords

Single Photon Emission Compute Tomography Nuclear Cardiology Coronary Compute Tomography Angiography Single Photon Emission Compute Tomography Imaging Myocardial Perfusion Single Photon Emission Compute Tomography 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Watson DD, Campbell NP, Read EK, et al. Spatial and temporal quantitation of plane thallium myocardial images. J Nucl Med 1981;22:577–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garcia E, Maddahi J, Berman D, Waxman A. Space/time quantitation of thallium-201 myocardial scintigraphy. J Nucl Med 1981; 22:309–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meade RC, Bamrah VS, Horgan JD, et al. Quantitative methods in the evaluation of thallium-201 myocardial perfusion images. J Nucl Med 1978;19:1175–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berger BC, Watson DD, Taylor GJ, et al. Quantitative thallium- 201 exercise scintigraphy for detection of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med 1981;22:585–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Train KF, Berman DS, Garcia EV, et al. Quantitative analysis of stress thallium-201 myocardial scintigrams: a multicenter trial. J Nucl Med 1986;27:17–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tamaki N, Yonekura Y, Mukai T, et al. Stress thallium-201 transaxial emission computed tomography: quantitative versus qualitative analysis for evaluation of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1984;4:1213–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garcia EV, Van Train K, Maddahi J, et al. Quantification of rotational thallium-201 myocardial tomography. J Nucl Med 1985; 26:17–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maddahi J, Van Train KF, Prigent F, et al. Quantitative single photon emission computed thallium-201 tomography for detection and localization of coronary artery disease: optimization and prospective validation of a new technique. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;14:1689–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DePasquale EE, Nody AC, DePuey EG, et al. Quantitative rotational thallium-201 tomography for identifying and localizing coronary artery disease. Circulation 1988;77:316–27.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klein JL, Garcia EV, DePuey EG, et al. Reversibility bull’s-eye: a new polar bull’s-eye map to quantify reversibility of stress induced SPECT thallium-201 myocardial perfusion defects. J Nucl Med 1990;31:1240–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mahmarian JJ, Moye LA, Verani MS, Bloom MF, Pratt CM. High reproducibility of myocardial defects in patients undergoing serial exercise thallium-201 tomography. Am J Cardiol 1995;75:1116–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Train KF, Areeda J, Garcia EV, et al. Quantitative same-day rest-stress technetium-99m-sestamibi SPECT: definition and validation of stress normal limits and criteria for abnormality. J Nucl Med 1993;34:1494–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faber TL, Stokely EM, Peshock RM, Corbett JR. A model-based four-dimensional left ventricular surface detector. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1991;10:321–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faber TL, Akers MS, Peshock RM, Corbett JR. Three-dimensional motion and perfusion quantification in gated single-photon emission computed tomograms. J Nucl Med 1991;32:2311–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Germano G, Kiat H, Kavanagh PB, et al. Automatic quantification of ejection fraction from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med 1995;36:2138–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goris ML, Thompson C, Malone LJ, Franken PR. Modelling the integration of myocardial perfusion and function. Nucl Med Commun 1994;15:9–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Slomka PJ, Hurwitz GA, Stephenson J, Cradduck T. Automated alignment and sizing of myocardial stress and rest scans to three-dimensional normal templates using an image registration algorithm. J Nucl Med 1995;36:1115–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Faber TL, Cooke CD, Folks RD, et al. Left ventricular function and perfusion from gated SPECT perfusion images: an integrated method. J Nucl Med 1999;40:650–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ficaro EP, Quaife RA, Kritzman JN, Corbett JR. Accuracy of reproducibility of 3D-MSPECT for estimating left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with severe perfusion abnormalities [abstract]. Circulation 1999;100:I26.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu YH, Sinusas AJ, DeMan P, Zaret B, Wackers FJ. Quantification of SPECT myocardial perfusion images: methodology and validation of the Yale-CQ method. J Nucl Cardiol 1999;6:190–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Germano G, Kavanagh PB, Waechter P, et al. A new myocardial algorithm for quantitation of myocardial perfusion SPECT. I: Technical principles and reproducibility. J Nucl Med 2000;41: 712–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berman DS, Hachamovitch R, Kiat H, et al. Incremental value of prognostic testing in patients with know or suspected ischemic heart disease: a basis for optimal utilization of exercise technetium- 99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;26:639–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garcia EV, Cooke CD, Folkes RD, et al. Diagnostic performance of an expert system for the interpretation of myocardial perfusion SPECT studies. J Nucl Med 2001;42:1185–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    King MA, Tsui BMW, Pan T. Attenuation compensation for cardiac single-photon emission computed tomographic imaging: Part 1. Impact of attenuation and methods of estimating attenuation maps. J Nucl Cardiol 1995;2:513–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    King MA, Tsui BMW, Pan T, Glick SJ, Soares EJ. Attenuation compensation for cardiac single-photon emission computed tomographic imaging: Part II. Attenuation compensation algorithms. J Nucl Cardiol 1996;3:55–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tsui BMW, Frey EC, LaCroix KJ, et al. Quantitative myocardial SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 1998;5:507–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ficaro EP, Fessler JA, Shreve PD, et al. Simultaneous transmission/ emission myocardial perfusion tomography: diagnostic accuracy of attenuation-corrected 99mTc-sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography. Circulation 1996;93:463–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hendel RC, Corbett JR, Cullom SJ, et al. The value and practice of attenuation correction for myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging: a joint position statement from the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology and the Society of Nuclear Medicine. J Nucl Cardiol 2002;9:135–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ficaro EP, Kritzman JN, Hamilton TW, Mitchell TA, Corbett JR. Effect of attenuation corrected myocardial perfusion SPECT on left ventricular ejection fraction estimates [abstract]. J Nucl Med 2000;41:166P.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roelants V, Vander Borght T, Walrand S, et al. Impact of attenuation correction on gated Tc-99m MIBI SPECT for wall thickening analysis in the evaluation of myocardial viability [abstract]. J Nucl Med 1998;39:74P.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kalki K, Blankenspoor SC, Brown JK, et al. Myocardial perfusion imaging with combined x-ray CT and SPECT system. J Nucl Med 1997;38:1535–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Becker CR, Knez A, Jakobs TF, et al. Detection and quantification of coronary artery calcification with electron-beam and conventional CT. Eur Radiol 1999;9:620–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1369–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ropers D, Baum U, Pohle K, et al. Detection of coronary artery stenoses with thin-slice multi-detector row spiral computed tomography and multiplanar reconstruction. Circulation 2003;107:664–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peifer JW, Ezquerra NF, Cooke CD, et al. Visualization of multimodality cardiac imagery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1990;37: 744–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear MedicineThe University of Michigan HospitalsAnn Arbor

Personalised recommendations