OBJECTIVE: To measure left ventricular (LV) function parameters in heart of healthy rats by three different positron emission tomography (PET) imaging techniques and by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: ECG-gated microPET examinations were obtained in seven healthy rats with 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) for calculation of LV-function from the blood-pool phase of the dynamic recording (FDGBP), and also from the later myocardial uptake (FDGMyo). On subsequent days, we re-measured LV-function using the novel blood-pool tracer (68)Ga-albumin (AlbBP) and again by FDG (FDGMyo2) in one setting. Cine-MRI examination provided the reference standard measurement. RESULTS: The mean LV ejection fractions (LVEF) were 56 ± 3 (FDGBP), 55 ± 3 (FDGMyo), 56 ± 3 (FDGMyo2), 57 ± 3 (AlbBP), and 57 ± 2 (MRI). There were good to excellent correlations found between the LVEF-values as compared to MRI reference standard for FDGBP (r = 0.71), FDGMyo (r = 0.86) and AlbBP (r = 0.88). Both of the blood-pool methods significantly overestimated the magnitudes of end-diastolic-volume and end-systolic-volume, whereas FDGMyo matched closely to the MRI reference standard. There was no significant bias for both blood-pool methods and a minor negative bias for FDGMyo regarding the LV ejection fraction (LVEF) when compared to cine-MRI results. There was no significant difference between the means of FDGMyo and FDGMyo2 (P = .50). CONCLUSIONS: Relative to reference standard MRI measurements of LVEF, there was excellent agreement between PET-based measurements, notably for the novel blood-pool tracer (68)Ga-albumin.
OBJECTIVE: To measure left ventricular (LV) function parameters in heart of healthy rats by three different positron emission tomography (PET) imaging techniques and by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: ECG-gated microPET examinations were obtained in seven healthy rats with 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) for calculation of LV-function from the blood-pool phase of the dynamic recording (FDGBP), and also from the later myocardial uptake (FDGMyo). On subsequent days, we re-measured LV-function using the novel blood-pool tracer (68)Ga-albumin (AlbBP) and again by FDG (FDGMyo2) in one setting. Cine-MRI examination provided the reference standard measurement. RESULTS: The mean LV ejection fractions (LVEF) were 56 ± 3 (FDGBP), 55 ± 3 (FDGMyo), 56 ± 3 (FDGMyo2), 57 ± 3 (AlbBP), and 57 ± 2 (MRI). There were good to excellent correlations found between the LVEF-values as compared to MRI reference standard for FDGBP (r = 0.71), FDGMyo (r = 0.86) and AlbBP (r = 0.88). Both of the blood-pool methods significantly overestimated the magnitudes of end-diastolic-volume and end-systolic-volume, whereas FDGMyo matched closely to the MRI reference standard. There was no significant bias for both blood-pool methods and a minor negative bias for FDGMyo regarding the LV ejection fraction (LVEF) when compared to cine-MRI results. There was no significant difference between the means of FDGMyo and FDGMyo2 (P = .50). CONCLUSIONS: Relative to reference standard MRI measurements of LVEF, there was excellent agreement between PET-based measurements, notably for the novel blood-pool tracer (68)Ga-albumin.
Authors: Wolfgang M Schaefer; Claudia S A Lipke; Bernd Nowak; Hans Juergen Kaiser; Arno Buecker; Gabriele A Krombach; Udalrich Buell; Harald P Kühl Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-02-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Takahiro Higuchi; Stephan G Nekolla; Antanas Jankaukas; Axel W Weber; Marc C Huisman; Sybille Reder; Sibylle I Ziegler; Markus Schwaiger; Frank M Bengel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michael C Kreissl; Hsiao-Ming Wu; David B Stout; Waldemar Ladno; Thomas H Schindler; Xiaoli Zhang; John O Prior; Mayumi L Prins; Arion F Chatziioannou; Sung-Cheng Huang; Heinrich R Schelbert Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christian Vanhove; Tony Lahoutte; Michel Defrise; Axel Bossuyt; Philippe R Franken Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Daniel Thomas; Harshali Bal; Jeffrey Arkles; James Horowitz; Luis Araujo; Paul D Acton; Victor A Ferrari Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Andrei Todica; Sebastian Lehner; Hao Wang; Mathias J Zacherl; Katharina Nekolla; Erik Mille; Guoming Xiong; Peter Bartenstein; Christian la Fougère; Marcus Hacker; Guido Böning Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Xiaoyan Zhang; Zhan-Qiu Liu; Dara Singh; David K Powell; Charles S Chung; Kenneth S Campbell; Jonathan F Wenk Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2018-08-04 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Andrei Todica; Mathias J Zacherl; Hao Wang; Guido Böning; Nathalie L Jansen; Carmen Wängler; Peter Bartenstein; Michael C Kreissl; Marcus Hacker; Stefan Brunner; Sebastian Lehner Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2014-09-05 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Falguni Basuli; Changhui Li; Biying Xu; Mark Williams; Karen Wong; Vincent L Coble; Olga Vasalatiy; Jurgen Seidel; Michael V Green; Gary L Griffiths; Peter L Choyke; Elaine M Jagoda Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Christoph Eissler; Nobuyuki Hayakawa; Paula Arias-Loza; Hiroshi Wakabayashi; Mehrbod S Javadi; Xinyu Chen; Tetsuya Shinaji; Constantin Lapa; Theo Pelzer; Takahiro Higuchi Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Christoph Eissler; Rudolf A Werner; Paula Arias-Loza; Naoko Nose; Xinyu Chen; Martin G Pomper; Steven P Rowe; Constantin Lapa; Andreas K Buck; Takahiro Higuchi Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2021-12-06 Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Sazan Rasul; Dietrich Beitzke; Tim Wollenweber; Ivo Rausch; Martin Lyngby Lassen; Marie Elisabeth Stelzmüller; Markus Mitterhauser; Verena Pichler; Thomas Beyer; Christian Loewe; Marcus Hacker Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 3.872
Authors: Maximilian Fischer; Tobias Weinberger; Guido Boening; Andrei Todica; Denise Messerer; Mathias J Zacherl; Christian Schulz; Steffen Massberg; Peter Bartenstein; Sebastian Lehner Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 2.258