Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Myocardial Perfusion Imaging is Feasible for Infarct Size Quantification in Mice Using a Clinical Single-photon Emission Computed Tomography System Equipped with Pinhole Collimators

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Molecular Imaging and Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 05 January 2010

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of this study is to evaluate a non-invasive method for measuring myocardial perfusion defect size in mice using a clinical single-photon emission computed tomography system equipped with pinhole collimators (pinhole SPECT).

Materials and Methods

Thirty days after ligation of the left anterior descending coronary artery, 13 mice (C57BL/6J) were imaged following intravenous injection of 370 MBq [99mTc]sestamibi. Eight control mice without myocardial infarction were likewise investigated. Image quality optimization had been achieved by repeated scanning of a multiple point phantom, with varying zoom factors, number of projection angles, and pinhole diameter. Volumetric sampling was used to generate polar maps, in which intensity was normalized to that of a standard septal region of interest (ROI), which was set at 100%. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to define an optimal threshold as compared to histologically measured defect sizes, which were considered as gold standard.

Results

A spatial resolution of 1.9 mm was achieved using a pinhole diameter of 0.5 mm, a zoom factor of 2, and 6° projection angles. Histological results were best reproduced by a 60% threshold relative to the septal reference ROI. By applying this threshold, SPECT perfusion defect sizes revealed very high correlation to the histological results (R 2 = 0.867) with excellent intra- and interobserver reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.84 and 0.82).

Conclusions

We achieved a spatial resolution of 1.9 mm in myocardial perfusion imaging in mice using a clinical SPECT system mounted with pinhole collimators. Compared to a histological gold standard, the infarct sizes were accurately estimated, indicating that this method shows promise to monitor experimental cardiac interventions in mice.

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.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Deindl E, Zaruba MM, Brunner S et al (2006) G-CSF administration after myocardial infarction in mice attenuates late ischemic cardiomyopathy by enhanced arteriogenesis. FASEB J 20(7):956–958

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zaruba MM, Theiss HD, Vallaster M et al (2009) Synergy between CD26/DPP-IV inhibition and G-CSF improves cardiac function after acute myocardial infarction. Cell Stem Cell 4(4):313–323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wu MC, Gao DW, Sievers RE, Lee RJ, Hasegawa BH, Dae MW (2003) Pinhole single-photon emission computed tomography for myocardial perfusion imaging of mice. J Am Coll Cardiol 42(3):576–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stegger L, Hoffmeier AN, Schafers KP et al (2006) Accurate noninvasive measurement of infarct size in mice with high-resolution PET. J Nucl Med 47(11):1837–1844

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Acton PD, Thomas D, Zhou R (2006) Quantitative imaging of myocardial infarct in rats with high resolution pinhole SPECT. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 22(3–4):429–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chin BB, Metzler SD, Lemaire A et al (2007) Left ventricular functional assessment in mice: feasibility of high spatial and temporal resolution ECG-gated blood pool SPECT. Radiology 245(2):440–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Scheuermann JS, Metzler SD (2007) Measuring transverse shift parameters for pinhole SPECT using point sources at multiple radii of rotation. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 54(5):1525–1534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Browne J, DePierro AR (1996) A row-action alternative to the EM algorithm for maximizing likelihoods in emission tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imag 15(5):687–699

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lewitt RM (1990) Multidimensional digital image representations using generalized Kaiser-Bessel window functions. J Opt Soc Am A 7(10):1834–1846

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Higuchi T, Nekolla SG, Jankaukas A et al (2007) Characterization of normal and infarcted rat myocardium using a combination of small-animal PET and clinical MRI. J Nucl Med 48(2):288–294

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nekolla SG, Miethaner C, Nguyen N, Ziegler SI, Schwaiger M (1998) Reproducibility of polar map generation and assessment of defect severity and extent assessment in myocardial perfusion imaging using positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 25(9):1313–1321

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Naidoo-Variawa S, Hey-Cunningham AJ, Lehnert W et al (2007) High-resolution imaging of the large non-human primate brain using microPET: a feasibility study. Phys Med Biol 52(22):6627–6638

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hirai T, Nohara R, Hosokawa R et al (2000) Evaluation of myocardial infarct size in rat heart by pinhole SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 7(2):107–111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu Z, Kastis GA, Stevenson GD et al (2002) Quantitative analysis of acute myocardial infarct in rat hearts with ischemia-reperfusion using a high-resolution stationary SPECT system. J Nucl Med 43(7):933–939

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yukihiro M, Inoue T, Iwasaki T, Tomiyoshi K, Erlandsson K, Endo K (1996) Myocardial infarction in rats: high-resolution single-photon emission tomographic imaging with a pinhole collimator. Eur J Nucl Med 23(8):896–900

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Constantinesco A, Choquet P, Monassier L, Israel-Jost V, Mertz L (2005) Assessment of left ventricular perfusion, volumes, and motion in mice using pinhole gated SPECT. J Nucl Med 46(6):1005–1011

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Liang X, Sun Y, Ye M et al (2009) Targeted ablation of PINCH1 and PINCH2 from murine myocardium results in dilated cardiomyopathy and early postnatal lethality. Circulation 120(7):568–576

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Richardson RB (2008) Age-dependent changes in oxygen tension, radiation dose and sensitivity within normal and diseased coronary arteries-Part A: dose from radon and thoron. Int J Radiat Biol 84(10):838–848

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cao F, Lin S, Xie X et al (2006) In vivo visualization of embryonic stem cell survival, proliferation, and migration after cardiac delivery. Circulation 113(7):1005–1014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Anger HO (1967) Radioisotope cameras. In: Hine GJ (ed) Instrumentation in nuclear medicine, vol 1. Academic, New York, pp 485–552

    Google Scholar 

  22. Metzler SD, Accorsi R (2005) Resolution- versus sensitivity-effective diameter in pinhole collimation: experimental verification. Phys Med Biol 50(21):5005–5017

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Iltis I, Kober F, Dalmasso C, Lan C, Cozzone PJ, Bernard M (2005) In vivo assessment of myocardial blood flow in rat heart using magnetic resonance imaging: effect of anesthesia. J Magn Reson Imaging 22(2):242–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

A substantial part of this work originated from the doctoral thesis of Tim Wollenweber.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Tim Wollenweber, Christian Zach, Sebastian Nowak, Christopher Übleis, Christian La Fougére, Guido Böning, Paul Cumming & Marcus Hacker

  2. Medical Department I, Klinikum Grosshadern, University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Christoph Rischpler, Rebekka Fischer, Michael Gröbner & Wolfgang-Michael Franz

  3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University, Munich, Germany

    Stephan G. Nekolla

  4. Institute of Pathology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Gerald Assmann

  5. Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin der LMU, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany

    Marcus Hacker

Authors
  1. Tim Wollenweber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Zach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christoph Rischpler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rebekka Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sebastian Nowak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stephan G. Nekolla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael Gröbner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Christopher Übleis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Gerald Assmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Christian La Fougére
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Guido Böning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Paul Cumming
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Wolfgang-Michael Franz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Marcus Hacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcus Hacker.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11307-009-0297-x

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wollenweber, T., Zach, C., Rischpler, C. et al. Myocardial Perfusion Imaging is Feasible for Infarct Size Quantification in Mice Using a Clinical Single-photon Emission Computed Tomography System Equipped with Pinhole Collimators. Mol Imaging Biol 12, 427–434 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-009-0281-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-009-0281-5

Key words

Search

Navigation