UNLABELLED: The evaluation of stem cell-mediated cardiomyoplasty by noninvasive in vivo imaging is critical for its clinical application. We hypothesized that dual-tracer small-animal SPECT would allow simultaneous imaging of (99m)Tc-sestamibi to assess myocardial perfusion and of (111)In-labeled stem cells to delineate stem cell engraftment. METHODS: Three to 4 million rat embryonic cardiomyoblasts (H9c2 cells) were labeled with 11.1-14.8 MBq (0.3-0.4 mCi) of (111)In-oxyquinoline and then injected into the border zones of infarcted myocardium of rats. (111)In images were acquired with a SPECT scanner 2, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h after the stem cells were injected into the infarcted myocardium. To visualize the perfusion deficit in the infarcted myocardium, we injected 74 MBq (2 mCi) of (99m)Tc-sestamibi (Cardiolite) intravenously 48 h after grafting. Dual-isotope pinhole SPECT was used to image (99m)Tc-sestamibi uptake simultaneously with (111)In to delineate retention of (111)In-labeled stem cells. The presence of labeled stem cells was confirmed by autoradiography and histology. RESULTS: SPECT of (99m)Tc-sestamibi was used to delineate perfusion deficits and infarcted myocardium. Bull's-eye plots indicated that the (111)In signal from the labeled stem cells overlapped the perfusion deficits identified from the (99m)Tc-sestamibi images. The (111)In signal associated with the radiolabeled stem cells could be detected with SPECT of the heart for 96 h after engraftment. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of using dual-isotope pinhole SPECT for high-resolution detection of perfusion deficits with (99m)Tc-sestamibi and with (111)In-labeled stem cells grafted into the region of the infarct.
UNLABELLED: The evaluation of stem cell-mediated cardiomyoplasty by noninvasive in vivo imaging is critical for its clinical application. We hypothesized that dual-tracer small-animal SPECT would allow simultaneous imaging of (99m)Tc-sestamibi to assess myocardial perfusion and of (111)In-labeled stem cells to delineate stem cell engraftment. METHODS: Three to 4 million ratembryonic cardiomyoblasts (H9c2 cells) were labeled with 11.1-14.8 MBq (0.3-0.4 mCi) of (111)In-oxyquinoline and then injected into the border zones of infarcted myocardium of rats. (111)In images were acquired with a SPECT scanner 2, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h after the stem cells were injected into the infarcted myocardium. To visualize the perfusion deficit in the infarcted myocardium, we injected 74 MBq (2 mCi) of (99m)Tc-sestamibi (Cardiolite) intravenously 48 h after grafting. Dual-isotope pinhole SPECT was used to image (99m)Tc-sestamibi uptake simultaneously with (111)In to delineate retention of (111)In-labeled stem cells. The presence of labeled stem cells was confirmed by autoradiography and histology. RESULTS: SPECT of (99m)Tc-sestamibi was used to delineate perfusion deficits and infarcted myocardium. Bull's-eye plots indicated that the (111)In signal from the labeled stem cells overlapped the perfusion deficits identified from the (99m)Tc-sestamibi images. The (111)In signal associated with the radiolabeled stem cells could be detected with SPECT of the heart for 96 h after engraftment. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of using dual-isotope pinhole SPECT for high-resolution detection of perfusion deficits with (99m)Tc-sestamibi and with (111)In-labeled stem cells grafted into the region of the infarct.
Authors: M E Roddie; A M Peters; H J Danpure; S Osman; B L Henderson; J P Lavender; M J Carroll; R D Neirinckx; J D Kelly Journal: Radiology Date: 1988-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Dara L Kraitchman; Alan W Heldman; Ergin Atalar; Luciano C Amado; Bradley J Martin; Mark F Pittenger; Joshua M Hare; Jeff W M Bulte Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-05-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Joseph C Wu; Ian Y Chen; Gobalakrishnan Sundaresan; Jung-Joon Min; Abhijit De; Jian-Hua Qiao; Michael C Fishbein; Sanjiv S Gambhir Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-09-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Joseph A Frank; Brad R Miller; Ali S Arbab; Holly A Zywicke; E Kay Jordan; Bobbi K Lewis; L Henry Bryant; Jeff W M Bulte Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-06-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: A M Peters; H J Danpure; S Osman; R J Hawker; B L Henderson; H J Hodgson; J D Kelly; R D Neirinckx; J P Lavender Journal: Lancet Date: 1986-10-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Grant T Gullberg; Bryan W Reutter; Arkadiusz Sitek; Jonathan S Maltz; Thomas F Budinger Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: M Pissarek; J Meyer-Kirchrath; T Hohlfeld; S Vollmar; A M Oros-Peusquens; U Flögel; C Jacoby; U Krügel; N Schramm Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-05-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: John Terrovitis; Riikka Lautamäki; Michael Bonios; James Fox; James M Engles; Jianhua Yu; Michelle K Leppo; Martin G Pomper; Richard L Wahl; Jurgen Seidel; Benjamin M Tsui; Frank M Bengel; M Roselle Abraham; Eduardo Marbán Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 24.094