Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic performances of Rubidium-PET and SPECT with CZT camera for the detection of myocardial ischemia in a population of women and overweight individuals

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

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performances for the detection of myocardial ischemia of 82-Rb-PET-MPS and 99m-Tc-SPECT-MPS in overweight individuals and women.

Methods and Results

Men with BMI ≥ 25 and women referred for MPS were considered for inclusion. All individuals underwent 99m-Tc-SPECT-MPS with CZT cameras and 82-Rb-PET-MPS in 3D-mode. Individuals with at least one positive MPS were referred for coronary angiography (CA) with FFR measurements. A criterion for positivity was a composite endpoint including significant stenosis on CA or, in the absence of CA, the occurrence of acute coronary event during the following year. 313 patients (46% women) with mean BMI of 31.8 ± 6.5 were included. Sensitivity for the detection of myocardial ischemia was higher with 82-Rb-PET-MPS compared with 99m-Tc-SPECT-MPS (85% vs. 57%, P < .05); specificity was equally high with both imaging techniques (93% vs. 94%, P > .05). 82-Rb-PET allowed for a more accurate detection of patients with a high-risk coronary artery disease (HR-CAD) than 99m-Tc-SPECT-MPS (AUC = 0.86 vs. 0.75, respectively; P = .04).

Conclusions

In women and overweight individuals, 82-Rb-PET-MPS provides higher sensitivity for the detection of myocardial ischemia than 99m-Tc-SPECT-MPS thanks to a better image quality and an improved detection of HR-CAD.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CA:

Coronary angiography

CAD:

Coronary artery disease

CZT:

Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride

FFR:

Fractional flow reserve

MBq:

Mega-Becquerel

MPS:

Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy

SPECT:

Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography

PET:

Positron Emission Tomography

82-Rubidium:

82-Rb

99m-Tc:

99m-Technetium

References

  1. Nichols M, Townsend N, Scarborough P, Rayner M. Cardiovascular disease in Europe 2014: Epidemiological update. Eur Heart J 2014;35:2929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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  Google Scholar 

  3. Task Force M, Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, Andreotti F, Arden C, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2013;34:2949-3003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shaw LJ, Bairey Merz CN, Pepine CJ, Reis SE, Bittner V, Kelsey SF, et al. Insights from the NHLBI-Sponsored Women’s Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) Study: Part I: Gender differences in traditional and novel risk factors, symptom evaluation, and gender-optimized diagnostic strategies. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:S4-20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dunn JP, Huizinga MM, See R, Irani WN. Choice of imaging modality in the assessment of coronary artery disease risk in extreme obesity. Obesity 2010;18:1-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sharir T, Ben-Haim S, Merzon K, Prochorov V, Dickman D, Ben-Haim S, et al. High-speed myocardial perfusion imaging initial clinical comparison with conventional dual detector anger camera imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2008;1:156-63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Imbert L, Poussier S, Franken PR, Songy B, Verger A, Morel O, et al. Compared performance of high-sensitivity cameras dedicated to myocardial perfusion SPECT: a comprehensive analysis of phantom and human images. J Nucl Med 2012;53:1897-903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Agostini D, Marie PY, Ben-Haim S, Rouzet F, Songy B, Giordano A, et al. Performance of cardiac cadmium-zinc-telluride gamma camera imaging in coronary artery disease: a review from the cardiovascular committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016;43:2423-32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Verger A, Djaballah W, Fourquet N, Rouzet F, Koehl G, Imbert L, et al. Comparison between stress myocardial perfusion SPECT recorded with cadmium-zinc-telluride and Anger cameras in various study protocols. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40:331-40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Schepis T, Gaemperli O, Treyer V, Valenta I, Burger C, Koepfli P, et al. Absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow with 13N-ammonia and 3-dimensional PET. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1783-9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Knesaurek K, Machac J, Krynyckyi BR, Almeida OD. Comparison of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional 82Rb myocardial perfusion PET imaging. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1350-6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Le Guludec D, Lautamaki R, Knuuti J, Bax JJ, Bengel FM, Bax JJ. European Council of Nuclear C. Present and future of clinical cardiovascular PET imaging in Europe: A position statement by the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology (ECNC). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:1709-24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sciagra R, Passeri A, Bucerius J, Verberne HJ, Slart RH, Lindner O, et al. Clinical use of quantitative cardiac perfusion PET: rationale, modalities and possible indications. Position paper of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016;43:1530-45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Engl J Med 1979;300:1350-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dunet V, Klein R, Allenbach G, Renaud J, deKemp RA, Prior JO. Myocardial blood flow quantification by Rb-82 cardiac PET/CT: A detailed reproducibility study between two semi-automatic analysis programs. J Nucl Cardiol 2016;23:499-510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Czernin J, Muller 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  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Dosimetry in diagnostic nuclear medicine. French Society of Medical Physics; 2001.

  18. Senthamizhchelvan S, Bravo PE, Esaias C, Lodge MA, Merrill J, Hobbs RF, et al. Human biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 82Rb. J Nucl Med 2010;51:1592-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT. College Park: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2008.

  20. De Bruyne B, Baudhuin T, Melin JA, Pijls NH, Sys SU, Bol A, et al. Coronary flow reserve calculated from pressure measurements in humans. Validation with positron emission tomography. Circulation 1994;89:1013-22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Perrin M, Djaballah W, Moulin F, Claudin M, Veran N, Imbert L, et al. Stress-first protocol for myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging with semiconductor cameras: High diagnostic performances with significant reduction in patient radiation doses. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015;42:1004-11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Driessen RS, Leipsic J, Raju R, Naoum C, et al. Comparison of coronary CT angiography, SPECT, PET, and hybrid imaging for diagnosis of ischemic heart disease determined by fractional flow reserve. JAMA Cardiol 2017;2:1100-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hachamovitch R, Hayes S, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Shaw LJ, Germano G, et al. Determinants of risk and its temporal variation in patients with normal stress myocardial perfusion scans: What is the warranty period of a normal scan? J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:1329-40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yoshinaga K, Chow BJ, Williams K, Chen L, deKemp RA, Garrard L, et al. What is the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography? J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:1029-39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bateman TM, Heller GV, McGhie AI, Friedman JD, Case JA, Bryngelson JR, 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;13:24-33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sampson UK, Dorbala S, Limaye A, Kwong R, Di Carli MF. Diagnostic accuracy of rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion imaging with hybrid positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:1052-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Agostini D, Roule V, Nganoa C, Roth N, Baavour R, Parienti JJ, et al. First validation of myocardial flow reserve assessed by dynamic (99 m)Tc-sestamibi CZT-SPECT camera: Head to head comparison with (15)O-water PET and fractional flow reserve in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. The WATERDAY study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018;45:1079-90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Souad Bani, Naima Beldjoudi, Lucile Collas, Audrey Pépin, and Sabrina Salhi who supported us in the setup and monitoring of the RUBIS study (from URC Paris Nord Val de Seine, Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, DRCI, Paris, France), and patients who agreed to participate in this study.

Disclosures

Fabien Hyafil is consultant for Naogen and Curium, Dominique Le Guludec is consultant for Advanced Accelerator Applications. The authors Renata Chequer, Emmanuel Sorbets, Candice Estellat, Gregory Ducrocq, François Rouzet, Toni Alfaiate, Hamza Regaieg, Jérémie Abtan, Sébastien Leygnac, Milan Milliner, Laetitia Imbert, Samuel Burg, Rana Ben Azzouna, Louis Potier, Cédric Laouénan, Caroline Quintin, Ronan Roussel, Agnès Hartemann, Gilles Montalescot, Pierre-Yves Marie, Gabriel Steg have nothing to disclose in relation to this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Bichat University Hospital, AP-HP, University Diderot, 75018, Paris, France

    Fabien Hyafil MD, PhD, Renata Chequer MD, François Rouzet MD, PhD, Hamza Regaieg MD, Sébastien Leygnac PhD, Milan Milliner MSc, Samuel Burg MD, PhD, Rana Ben Azzouna PharmD, PhD & Dominique Le Guludec MD, PhD

  2. INSERM, U-1148, DHU FIRE, University Diderot, 75018, Paris, France

    Fabien Hyafil MD, PhD, Gregory Ducrocq MD, PhD, François Rouzet MD, PhD, Sébastien Leygnac PhD, Milan Milliner MSc, Samuel Burg MD, PhD, Rana Ben Azzouna PharmD, PhD, Gabriel Steg MD & Dominique Le Guludec MD, PhD

  3. Department of Cardiology, Avicenne University Hospital, AP-HP, University Paris 13, 9300, Bobigny, France

    Emmanuel Sorbets MD, PhD

  4. Département de Biostatistiques, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Santé Publique et Informatique Médicale, 75013, Paris, France

    Candice Estellat MD, PhD

  5. INSERM, CIC-EC 1425, ECEVE UMR 1123, 75018, Paris, France

    Candice Estellat MD, PhD

  6. Department of Cardiology, Bichat University Hospital, AP-HP, 75018, Paris, France

    Gregory Ducrocq MD, PhD, Jérémie Abtan MD & Gabriel Steg MD

  7. French Alliance for Cardiovascular Trials, and F-CRIN Network, Paris, France

    Gregory Ducrocq MD, PhD, Jérémie Abtan MD & Gabriel Steg MD

  8. Département d’Epidémiologie, Hôpital Bichat, AP-HP, Biostatistique et Recherche Clinique, 75018, Paris, France

    Toni Alfaiate MSc, Cédric Laouénan MD, PhD & Caroline Quintin MSc

  9. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Brambois University Hospital, Lorraine University, 54500, Vandœuvre-Lès-Nancy, France

    Laetitia Imbert PhD & Pierre-Yves Marie MD, PhD

  10. Department of Diabetology, DHU FIRE, Bichat University Hospital, AP-HP, University Diderot, 75018, Paris, France

    Louis Potier MD & Ronan Roussel MD, PhD

  11. Department of Diabetology, Pitié-Salpétriêre University Hospital, AP-HP, Sorbonne University Paris 6, 75006, Paris, France

    Agnès Hartemann MD, PhD

  12. ACTION Study Group, Department of Cardiology, Pitié-Salpétriêre, Sorbonne Université-Paris 6, 75006, Paris, France

    Gilles Montalescot MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Fabien Hyafil MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Renata Chequer MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emmanuel Sorbets MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Candice Estellat MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gregory Ducrocq MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. François Rouzet MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Toni Alfaiate MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hamza Regaieg MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jérémie Abtan MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Sébastien Leygnac PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Milan Milliner MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Laetitia Imbert PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Samuel Burg MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Rana Ben Azzouna PharmD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Louis Potier MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Cédric Laouénan MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Caroline Quintin MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Ronan Roussel MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Agnès Hartemann MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Gilles Montalescot MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Pierre-Yves Marie MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Gabriel Steg MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Dominique Le Guludec MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabien Hyafil MD, PhD.

Additional information

The authors of this article have provided a PowerPoint file, available for download at SpringerLink, which summarises the contents of the paper and is free for re-use at meetings and presentations. Search for the article DOI on SpringerLink.com.

Funding This study was fully supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health (Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique 2011 AOM11066).

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 2324 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hyafil, F., Chequer, R., Sorbets, E. et al. Head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic performances of Rubidium-PET and SPECT with CZT camera for the detection of myocardial ischemia in a population of women and overweight individuals. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 27, 755–768 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-01557-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-01557-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation