Atlas of Basic Interpretation of Myocardial Perfusion Images

  • Denny D. Watson
  • William H. Smith
Part of the Atlases of Clinical Nuclear Medicine book series (ATLASES)


Myocardial perfusion imaging is extraordinarily demanding of both technique and interpretive skills. Several years passed after the introduction of thallium (201Tl) in the mid-1970s 1 before myocardial perfusion imaging emerged as a useful clinical tool. The development of “quantitative” imaging in the early 1980s 2,3 produced the tools for standardization and the expectation of more consistent clinical results. The method has become more consistent and reliable. This may be related to a more general learning curve and not only the result of quantitation.


Single Photon Emission Compute Tomographic Myocardial Perfusion Myocardial Perfusion Image Single Photon Emission Compute Tomographic Image Pretest Likelihood 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lebowitz E, Greene W, Fairchild R, et al. thallium-201 for medical use I. J Nucl Med. 1975; 16: 151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garcia E, Maddahi J, Berman D, et al. Space/time quantitation of thallium-201 myocardial scintigraphy. J Nucl Med. 1981; 22; 309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Watson DD, Campbell NP, Beller GA, et al. Spatial and temporal quantification of plane thallium myocardial images. JNucl Med. 1981; 22: 577.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wackers FT, Berman DS, Maddahi J, et al. Technetium-99m Hexakis-2Methoxyisobutyl Isonitrile: human biodistribution, dosimetry, safety and preliminary comparison to thallium-201 for myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 1989; 30: 301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seldin DW, Johnson LL, Blood DK, et al. Myocardial perfusion imaging with technetium-99m SQ30217: comparison with thallium-201 and coronary anatomy. JNucl Med. 1990; 31: 312–319.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beller GA. Current status of nuclear cardiology techniques. Curr Probl Cardiol. 1991; 10 (7): 512–519.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith WH, Watson DD. Technical aspects of myocardial planar imaging with tc-99m sestamibi. Am J Cardiol. 1990; 66: 16E - 22E.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beller GA, Watson DD. Physiological basis of myocardial perfusion imaging with the technetium 99m agents. Semin Nucl Med. 1991; 23 (3): 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hosen K, Berman D, Maddahi J, et al. Late reversibility of tomographic myocardial thallium-201 defects: an accurate marker of myocardial viability. JAm Coll Cardiol. 1988; 12 (6): 1456–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ling D, Berman D, Kiat H, et al. The frequency of late reversibility in SPECT thallium-201 stress-redistribution studies. JAm Coll Cardiol. 1990; 15 (2): 334–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gibson RS, Watson DD, Taylor GJ, et al. Prospective assessment of regional myocardial perfusion before and after coronary revascularization surgery by quantitative thallium-201 scintigraphy. JAm Coll Cardiol. 1983; 1: 804–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gray JE, Lisk KG, Haddick DH, Harshbarger JH, Oosterhof A, Schwenker R, Members of the SMPTE Subcommittee on Recommended Practices for Medical Diagnostic Display Devices. Test pattern for video displays and hard-copy cameras. Radiology. 1985; 154: 519–527.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    SMPTE Recommended Practice RP 133: Specifications for medical diagnostic imaging test pattern for television monitors and hardcopy recording cameras. SMPTE, 826 Scarsdale Ave, NY 10583.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Watson DD, Smith WH, Lillywhite RC, Beller GA. Quantitative analysis of T1–201 redistribution at 24 hours compared to 2 and 4 hours post injection J Nucl Med. 1990;31:763. Abstract.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watson DD, Smith WH, Beller GA. Analysis of timing of delayed images for optimal detection of t1–201 redistribution. Circulation. 1991;84(II):509. Abstract.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rocco TP, Dilsizian V, McKusick K, et al. Comparison of thallium redistribution with rest “reinjection” imaging for the detection of viable myocardium. Am J Cardiol. 1990; 66: 158–163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dilsizian V, Thomas PR, Nanette MT, et al. Enhanced detection of ischemic but viable myocardium by the reinjection of thallium after stress-redistribution imaging. NEngl J Med. 1990; 323 (3): 141–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dilsizian V, Smeltzer WR, Bonow RO, et al. Thallium reinjection after stress-redistribution imaging–does 24-hour delayed imaging after reinjection enhance detection of viable myocardium. Circulation. 1991; 83 (4): 1247–1255.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tamaki N, Ohtani H, Yonekura Y, et al. Significance of fill-in after thallium-201 reinjection following delayed imaging: comparison with regional wall motion and angiographic findings. JNucl Med. 1990; 31: 1617–1623.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rembold CM, Watson DD. Posttest probability calculation by weights. Ann Intern Med. 1988; 108: 115–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease. NEngl J Med. 1979; 300: 1350–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denny D. Watson
  • William H. Smith

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations