Cardiac Positron Emission Tomography

  • Justin LundbyeEmail author


In many laboratories, Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography imaging is the procedure of choice for nuclear cardiology procedures. Despite this, cardiac Positron Emission Tomography (PET) perfusion imaging has been recognized as superior to standard SPECT imaging due to higher image quality a greater efficiency [1]. However, it has been infrequently used due to limited availability of camera systems, radiopharmaceuticals and technical difficulties in cardiac acquisition and processing. Recently, the number of PET Camera systems has increased substantially and acquisition, processing and display of Cardiac PET studies has vastly improved. Thus, since its introduction in the early 1980s [2], the use of Cardiac (PET) perfusion imaging has greatly increased within the last 8 years. Its superior sensitivity and specificity over Single Photon Emission Computed Tomographic (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging [3], as well as the routine availability of Rubidium-82 (Rb-82), has made cardiac PET an important tool in the detection and risk stratification of coronary artery disease. This chapter will discuss some of the technical differences between PET and SPECT cameras, particularly as it relates to choice of technologies, and provide insights as to when PET might be preferable to SPECT for individual patients. A more detailed description of PET radiopharmaceuticals is provided in Part III ( Chap. 13) and PET instrumentation in Part III ( Chap. 14).


Positron Emission Tomography Single Photon Emission Compute Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Cardiac Sarcoidosis Cardiac Positron Emission 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.


  1. 1.
    Bateman TM, Heller GV, McGhie AI, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of rest/stress ECG-gated Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET: comparison with ECG-gated Tc-99 m sestamibi SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13(1):24–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schelbert HR, Wisenberg G, Phelps ME, et al. Noninvasive assessment of coronary stenoses by myocardial imaging during pharmacologic coronary vasodilation. VI. Detection of coronary artery disease in human beings with intravenous N-13 ammonia and positron computed tomography. Am J Cardiol. 1982;49(5):1197–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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(4):444–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cerqueira MD, Allman KC, Ficaro EP, et al. Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17(4):709–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    al Moudi M, Sun Z, Lenzo N. Diagnostic value of SPECT, PET and PET/CT in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2010;7(2):e9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeKemp RA, Yoshinaga K, Beanlands RS. Will 3-dimensional PET-CT enable the routine quantification of myocardial blood flow? J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14(3):380–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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(23):2201–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Hospital of Central ConnecticutNew BritainUSA

Personalised recommendations