Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PET: Is myocardial flow quantification a clinical reality?

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology Aims and scope

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) enables quantitative measurements of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR). Recent developments and improved availability of PET technology have resulted in growing interest in translation of quantitative flow analysis from mainly a research tool to routine clinical practice. Quantitative PET measurements of absolute MBF and MFR have potential to improve accuracy of myocardial perfusion imaging in diagnosis of multivessel coronary artery disease as well as definition of the extent and functional importance of stenoses. This article reviews recent advances and experience in the quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging together with issues that need to be resolved for quantitative analysis to become clinical reality.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH, Bateman TM, Messer JV, Berman DS, 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 

  2. Knuuti J, Kajander S, Maki M, Ukkonen H. Quantification of myocardial blood flow will reform the detection of cad. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:497-506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bengel FM. Leaving relativity behind: Quantitative clinical perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:749-51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Melikian N, De Bondt P, Tonino P, De Winter O, Wyffels E, Bartunek J, et al. Fractional flow reserve and myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with angiographic multivessel coronary artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010;3:307-14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maddahi J. Properties of an ideal PET perfusion tracer: New PET tracer cases and data. J Nucl Cardiol 2012;19:S30-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bergmann SR, Fox KA, Rand AL, McElvany KD, Welch MJ, Markham J, et al. Quantification of regional myocardial blood flow in vivo with H215O. Circulation 1984;70:724-33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Iida H, Kanno I, Takahashi A, Miura S, Murakami M, Takahashi K, et al. Measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow with H2 15O and dynamic positron-emission tomography. Strategy for quantification in relation to the partial-volume effect. Circulation 1988;78:104-15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Harms HJ, Knaapen P, de Haan S, Halbmeijer R, Lammertsma AA, Lubberink M. Automatic generation of absolute myocardial blood flow images using [15O]H2O and a clinical PET/CT scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:930-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nesterov SV, Han C, Mäki M, Kajander S, Naum AG, Helenius H, et al. Myocardial perfusion quantitation with 15O-labelled water PET: High reproducibility of the new cardiac analysis software (Carimas). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36:1594-602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hutchins GD, Schwaiger M, Rosenspire KC, Krivokapich J, Schelbert H, Kuhl DE. Noninvasive quantification of regional blood flow in the human heart using N-13 ammonia and dynamic positron emission tomographic imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990;15:1032-42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Muzik O, Beanlands RS, Hutchins GD, Mangner TJ, Nguyen N, Schwaiger M. Validation of nitrogen-13-ammonia tracer kinetic model for quantification of myocardial blood flow using PET. J Nucl Med 1993;34:83-91.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. DeGrado TR, Hanson M, Turkington T, Delong D, Brezinski D, Vallee J. Estimation of myocardial blood flow for longitudinal studies with 13N-labeled ammonia and positron emission tomography. J Nucl Cardiol 1996;3:494-507.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schäfers KP, Spinks TJ, Camici PG, Bloomfield PM, Rhodes CG, Law MP, et al. Absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow with H(2)(15)O and 3-dimensional PET: An experimental validation. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1031-40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lortie M, Beanlands RS, Yoshinaga K, Klein R, Dasilva JN, DeKemp RA. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82-Rb dynamic PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1765-74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Anagnostopoulos C, Almonacid A, El Fakhri G, Curillova Z, Sitek A, Roughton M. Quantitative relationship between coronary vasodilator reserve assessed by 82-Rb PET imaging and coronary artery stenosis severity. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:1593-601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lautamäki R, George RT, Kitagawa K, Higuchi T, Merrill J, Voicu C, et al. Rubidium-82 PET-CT for quantitative assessment of myocardial blood flow: Validation in a canine model of coronary artery stenosis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36:576-86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. El Fakhri G, Kardan A, Sitek A, Dorbala S, Abi-Hatem N, Lahoud Y, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of quantitative myocardial blood flow assessment with (82)Rb PET: Comparison with (13)N-ammonia PET. J Nucl Med 2009;50:1062-71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nekolla SG, Saraste A. Novel F-18-labeled PET myocardial perfusion tracers: Bench to bedside. Curr Cardiol Rep 2011;13:145-50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Maddahi J, Czernin J, Lazewatsky J, Huang SC, Dahlbom M, Schelbert H, et al. Phase I, first-in-human study of BMS747158, a novel 18F-labeled tracer for myocardial perfusion PET: Dosimetry, biodistribution, safety, and imaging characteristics after a single injection at rest. J Nucl Med 2011;52:1490-8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Nekolla SG, Reder S, Saraste A, Higuchi T, Dzewas G, Preissel A, et al. Evaluation of the novel myocardial perfusion positron-emission tomography tracer 18F-BMS-747158-02: Comparison to 13N-ammonia and validation with microspheres in a pig model. Circulation 2009;119:2333-42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sherif HM, Nekolla SG, Saraste A, Reder S, Yu M, Robinson S, et al. Simplified quantification of myocardial flow reserve with flurpiridaz F 18: Validation with microspheres in a pig model. J Nucl Med 2011;52:617-24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Saraste A, Nekolla S, Schwaiger M. Nuclear cardiology needs new “blood”. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:180-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hesse B, Tägil K, Cuocolo A, Anagnostopoulos C, Bardiés M, Bax J, et al. EANM/ESC procedural guidelines for myocardial perfusion imaging in nuclear cardiology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:855-97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Gould KL, Pan T, Loghin C, Johnson NP, Guha A, Sdringola S. Frequent diagnostic errors in cardiac PET/CT due to misregistration of CT attenuation and emission PET images: A definitive analysis of causes, consequences, and corrections. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1112-21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Koepfli P, Hany TF, Wyss CA, Namdar M, Burger C, Konstantinidis AV, et al. CT attenuation correction for myocardial perfusion quantification using a PET/CT hybrid scanner. J Nucl Med 2004;45:537-42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kajander S, Joutsiniemi E, Saraste M, Pietilä M, Ukkonen H, Saraste A, et al. Diagnostic performance of hybrid CT coronary angiography and Positron emission tomography for coronary artery disease. Circulation 2010;122:603-13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hajjiri MM, Leavitt MB, Zheng H, Spooner AE, Fischman AJ, Gewirtz H. Comparison of positron emission tomography measurement of adenosine-stimulated absolute myocardial blood flow versus relative myocardial tracer content for physiological assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity and location. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2009;2:751-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Czernin J, Müller P, Chan S, Brunken RC, Porenta G, Krivokapich J, et al. Influence of age and hemodynamics on myocardial blood flow and flow reserve. Circulation 1993;88:62-9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. McGinn AL, White CW, Wilson RF. Interstudy variability of coronary flow reserve: Influence of heart rate, arterial blood pressure, and ventricular preload. Circulation 1990;81:1319-30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Rossen JD, Winniford MD. Effects of increases in heart rate and arterial pressure on coronary flow reserve in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;21:343-8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Slomka PJ, Alexanderson E, Jácome R, Jiménez M, Romero E, Meave A, et al. Comparison of clinical tools for measurements of regional stress and rest myocardial blood flow assessed with 13N-ammonia PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2012;53:171-81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ziadi MC, deKemp RA, Williams K, Guo A, Renaud JM, Chow BJW, et al. Does quantification of myocardial flow reserve using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography facilitate detection of multivessel coronary artery disease? J Nucl Cardiol 2012. doi:10.1007/s12350-011-9506-5.

  33. Kajander SA, Joutsiniemi E, Saraste M, Pietilä M, Ukkonen H, Saraste A, et al. Clinical value of absolute quantification of myocardial perfusion with (15)O-water in coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4:678-84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yoshinaga K, Katoh C, Noriyasu K, Iwado Y, Furuyama H, Ito Y, et al. Reduction of coronary flow reserve in areas with and without ischemia on stress perfusion imaging in patients with coronary artery disease: A study using oxygen 15-labeled water pet. J Nucl Cardiol 2003;10:275-83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gould KL, Lipscomb K. Effects of coronary stenoses on coronary flow reserve and resistance. Am J Cardiol 1974;34:48-55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Uren NG, Melin JA, De Bruyne B, Wijns W, Baudhuin T, Camici PG. Relation between myocardial blood flow and the severity of coronary artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 1994;330:1782-8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Di Carli M, Czernin J, Hoh CK, Gerbaudo VH, Brunken RC, Huang SC, et al. Relation among stenosis severity, myocardial blood flow, and flow reserve in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 1995;91:1944-51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Beanlands RS, Muzik O, Melon P, Sutor R, Sawada S, Muller D, et al. Noninvasive quantification of regional myocardial flow reserve in patients with coronary atherosclerosis using nitrogen-13 ammonia positron emission tomography. Determination of extent of altered vascular reactivity. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;26:1465-75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Muzik O, Duvernoy C, Beanlands RS, Sawada S, Dayanikli F, Wolfe ER Jr, et al. Assessment of diagnostic performance of quantitative flow measurements in normal subjects and patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease by means of nitrogen-13 ammonia and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;31:534-40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Anagnostopoulos C, Almonacid A, El Fakhri G, Curillova Z, Sitek A, Roughton M, et al. Quantitative relationship between coronary vasodilator reserve assessed by 82Rb PET imaging and coronary artery stenosis severity. Eur J Nucl Med Mol 2008;35:1593-601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Parkash R, deKemp RA, Ruddy TD, Kitsikis A, Hart R, Beauchesne L, et al. Potential utility of rubidium 82 pet quantification in patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol 2004;11:440-9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Tio RA, Dabeshlim A, Siebelink HM, de Sutter J, Hillege HL, Zeebregts CJ, et al. Comparison between the prognostic value of left ventricular function and myocardial perfusion reserve in patients with ischemic heart disease. J Nucl Med 2009;50:214-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Herzog BA, Husmann L, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, Siegrist PT, Tay FM, 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 

  44. Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams KA, Guo A, Chow BJ, Renaud JM, 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 

  45. Fukushima K, Javadi MS, Higuchi T, Lautamäki R, Merrill J, Nekolla SG, 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 

  46. Sdringola S, Johnson NP, Kirkeeide RL, Cid E, Gould KL. Impact of unexpected factors on quantitative myocardial perfusion and coronary flow reserve in young, asymptomatic volunteers. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4:402-12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Tonino PA, Fearon WF, De Bruyne B, Oldroyd KG, Leesar MA, Ver Lee PN, et al. Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2816-21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Johnson NP, Gould KL. Physiological basis for angina and ST-segment change PET-verified thresholds of quantitative stress myocardial perfusion and coronary flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4:990-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Burkhard N, Herzog BA, Husmann L, Pazhenkottil AP, Burger IA, Buechel RR, et al. Coronary calcium score scans for attenuation correction of quantitative PET/CT 13N-ammonia myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:517-21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Greenland P, Bonow RO, Brundage BH, Budoff MJ, Eisenberg MJ, Grundy SM, et al. ACCF/AHA 2007 clinical expert consensus document on coronary artery calcium scoring by computed tomography in global cardiovascular risk assessment and in evaluation of patients with chest pain: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Clinical Expert Consensus Task Force (ACCF/AHA Writing Committee to Update the 2000 Expert Consensus Document on Electron Beam Computed Tomography) developed in collaboration with the Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:378-402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Schepis T, Gaemperli O, Koepfli P, Namdar M, Valenta I, Scheffel H, et al. Added value of coronary artery calcium score as an adjunct to gated SPECT for the evaluation of coronary artery disease in an intermediate-risk population. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1424-30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Schenker MP, Dorbala S, Hong EC, Rybicki FJ, Hachamovitch R, Kwong RY, et al. Interrelation of coronary calcification, myocardial ischemia, and outcomes in patients with intermediate likelihood of coronary artery disease: A combined positron emission tomography/computed tomography study. Circulation 2008;117:1693-700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1503-16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, Hardison RM, Kelsey SF, MacGregor JM, et al. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009;360:2503-15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 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 

  56. Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, Mancini GB, Hayes SW, Hartigan PM, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: Results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation 2008;117:1283-91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van’ t Veer M, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009;360:213-24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, Di Mario C, Falk V, Folliguet T, et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2010;31:2501-55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Shaw LJ, Kiat H, Cohen I, Cabico JA, et al. Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: Differential risk stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. Circulation 1998;97:535-43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Schindler T, Schelbert H, Quercioli M, Dilsizian V. Cardiac PET imaging for the detection and monitoring of coronary artery disease and microvascular health. J Am Coll Cardiol Imaging 2010;3:623-40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Turku PET Centre, University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, 20520, Turku, Finland

    Antti Saraste MD, PhD, Sami Kajander MD, PhD, Chunlei Han MD, PhD, Sergey V. Nesterov MD, PhD, PMP & Juhani Knuuti MD, PhD

  2. Department of Medicine, Turku University Hospital, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, 20520, Turku, Finland

    Antti Saraste MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Antti Saraste MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sami Kajander MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chunlei Han MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sergey V. Nesterov MD, PhD, PMP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Juhani Knuuti MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juhani Knuuti MD, PhD.

Additional information

The authors acknowledge financial support from The Academy of Finland Centre of Excellence in Molecular Imaging in Cardiovascular and Metabolic Research, Helsinki, Finland and Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saraste, A., Kajander, S., Han, C. et al. PET: Is myocardial flow quantification a clinical reality?. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 19, 1044–1059 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-012-9588-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-012-9588-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation