PURPOSE: Endothelial dysfunction is the earliest abnormality in the development of coronary atherosclerosis. 82Rb is a generator-produced positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion tracer that is becoming more widely used. We aimed to (1) develop a method for quantitative assessment of coronary endothelial function using the myocardial blood flow (MBF) response during a cold pressor test (CPT) in smokers, measured using 82Rb PET, and (2) compare the results with those measured using 15O-water PET. METHODS: MBF was assessed at rest and during the CPT with 82Rb and 15O-water in nine controls and ten smokers. A one-compartment model with tracer extraction correction was used to estimate MBF with both tracers. CPT response was calculated as the ratio of MBF during the CPT to MBF at rest. RESULTS: At rest, measurements of MBF for smokers vs controls were not different using 15O-water (0.86±0.18 vs 0.70±0.13, p=0.426) than they were using 82Rb (0.83±0.23 vs 0.62±0.20, p=0.051). Both methods showed a reduced CPT response in smokers vs controls (15O-water, 1.03±0.21 vs 1.42±0.29, p=0.006; 82Rb, 1.02±0.28 vs 1.70±0.52, p<0.001). There was high reliability [intraclass correlation coefficients: 0.48 (0.07, 0.75)] of MBF measurement between 82Rb and 15O-water during the CPT. CONCLUSION: Using a CPT, 82Rb MBF measurements detected coronary endothelial dysfunctions in smokers. 82Rb MBF measurements were comparable to those made using the 15O-water approach. Thus, 82Rb PET may be applicable for risk assessments or evaluation of risk factor modification in subjects with coronary risk factors.
PURPOSE: Endothelial dysfunction is the earliest abnormality in the development of coronary atherosclerosis. 82Rb is a generator-produced positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion tracer that is becoming more widely used. We aimed to (1) develop a method for quantitative assessment of coronary endothelial function using the myocardial blood flow (MBF) response during a cold pressor test (CPT) in smokers, measured using 82Rb PET, and (2) compare the results with those measured using 15O-water PET. METHODS: MBF was assessed at rest and during the CPT with 82Rb and 15O-water in nine controls and ten smokers. A one-compartment model with tracer extraction correction was used to estimate MBF with both tracers. CPT response was calculated as the ratio of MBF during the CPT to MBF at rest. RESULTS: At rest, measurements of MBF for smokers vs controls were not different using 15O-water (0.86±0.18 vs 0.70±0.13, p=0.426) than they were using 82Rb (0.83±0.23 vs 0.62±0.20, p=0.051). Both methods showed a reduced CPT response in smokers vs controls (15O-water, 1.03±0.21 vs 1.42±0.29, p=0.006; 82Rb, 1.02±0.28 vs 1.70±0.52, p<0.001). There was high reliability [intraclass correlation coefficients: 0.48 (0.07, 0.75)] of MBF measurement between 82Rb and 15O-water during the CPT. CONCLUSION: Using a CPT, 82Rb MBF measurements detected coronary endothelial dysfunctions in smokers. 82Rb MBF measurements were comparable to those made using the 15O-water approach. Thus, 82Rb PET may be applicable for risk assessments or evaluation of risk factor modification in subjects with coronary risk factors.
Authors: Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Benjamin J W Chow; Robert A dekemp; Stephanie Thorn; Terrence D Ruddy; Ross A Davies; Jean N DaSilva; Rob Beanlands Journal: Curr Pharm Des Date: 2005 Impact factor: 3.116
Authors: P A Kaufmann; T Gnecchi-Ruscone; M di Terlizzi; K P Schäfers; T F Lüscher; P G Camici Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-09-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kirkeith Lertsburapa; Alan W Ahlberg; Timothy M Bateman; Deborah Katten; Lyndy Volker; S James Cullom; Gary V Heller Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2008-09-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Riikka Lautamäki; Richard T George; Kakuya Kitagawa; Takahiro Higuchi; Jennifer Merrill; Corina Voicu; Anthony DiPaula; Stephan G Nekolla; João A C Lima; Albert C Lardo; Frank M Bengel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-11-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mireille Lortie; Rob S B Beanlands; Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Ran Klein; Jean N Dasilva; Robert A DeKemp Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-07-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Timothy M Bateman; Gary V Heller; A Iain McGhie; John D Friedman; James A Case; Jan R Bryngelson; Ginger K Hertenstein; Kelly L Moutray; Kimberly Reid; S James Cullom Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: John O Prior; Gilles Allenbach; Ines Valenta; Marek Kosinski; Cyrill Burger; Francis R Verdun; Angelika Bischof Delaloye; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Vincent Dunet; François Feihl; Amin Dabiri; Gilles Allenbach; Bernard Waeber; Raphaël Heinzer; John O Prior Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Vincent Dunet; Vincianne Rey-Bataillard; Gilles Allenbach; Nicolas Beysard; Alban Lovis; John O Prior; Raphael Heinzer Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Vincent Dunet; Juan Ruiz; Gilles Allenbach; Paola Izzo; Richard W James; John O Prior Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2011-11-18 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Ibrahim Danad; Pieter G Raijmakers; Yolande E Appelman; Hendrik J Harms; Stefan de Haan; Mijntje L P van den Oever; Cornelis van Kuijk; Cornelis P Allaart; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Mark Lubberink; Albert C van Rossum; Paul Knaapen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Etienne Croteau; Jennifer M Renaud; Christine Archer; Ran Klein; Jean N DaSilva; Terrence D Ruddy; Rob Sb Beanlands; Robert A deKemp Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 3.138