PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare a new generation of four-dimensional micro-single photon emission computed tomography (microSPECT) with microCT for the quantitative in vivo assessment of murine cardiac function. PROCEDURES: Four-dimensional isotropic cardiac images were acquired from anesthetized normal C57BL/6 mice with either microSPECT (n = 6) or microCT (n = 6). One additional mouse with myocardial infarction (MI) was scanned with both modalities. Prior to imaging, mice were injected with either technetium tetrofosmin for microSPECT or a liposomal blood pool contrast agent for microCT. Segmentation of the left ventricle (LV) was performed using Vitrea (Vital Images) software, to derive global and regional function. RESULTS: Measures of global LV function between microSPECT and microCT groups were comparable (e.g., ejection fraction = 71 ± 6 % microSPECT and 68 ± 4 % microCT). Regional functional indices (wall motion, wall thickening, regional ejection fraction) were also similar for the two modalities. In the mouse with MI, microSPECT identified a large perfusion defect that was not evident with microCT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite lower spatial resolution, microSPECT was comparable to microCT in the quantitative evaluation of cardiac function. MicroSPECT offers an advantage over microCT in the ability to evaluate simultaneously myocardial radiotracer distribution and function, simultaneously. MicroSPECT should be considered as an alternative to microCT and magnetic resonance for preclinical cardiac imaging in the mouse.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare a new generation of four-dimensional micro-single photon emission computed tomography (microSPECT) with microCT for the quantitative in vivo assessment of murine cardiac function. PROCEDURES: Four-dimensional isotropic cardiac images were acquired from anesthetized normal C57BL/6 mice with either microSPECT (n = 6) or microCT (n = 6). One additional mouse with myocardial infarction (MI) was scanned with both modalities. Prior to imaging, mice were injected with either technetium tetrofosmin for microSPECT or a liposomal blood pool contrast agent for microCT. Segmentation of the left ventricle (LV) was performed using Vitrea (Vital Images) software, to derive global and regional function. RESULTS: Measures of global LV function between microSPECT and microCT groups were comparable (e.g., ejection fraction = 71 ± 6 % microSPECT and 68 ± 4 % microCT). Regional functional indices (wall motion, wall thickening, regional ejection fraction) were also similar for the two modalities. In the mouse with MI, microSPECT identified a large perfusion defect that was not evident with microCT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite lower spatial resolution, microSPECT was comparable to microCT in the quantitative evaluation of cardiac function. MicroSPECT offers an advantage over microCT in the ability to evaluate simultaneously myocardial radiotracer distribution and function, simultaneously. MicroSPECT should be considered as an alternative to microCT and magnetic resonance for preclinical cardiac imaging in the mouse.
Authors: Cinzia Perrino; Giuseppe Gargiulo; Gianluigi Pironti; Anna Franzone; Laura Scudiero; Mario De Laurentis; Fabio Magliulo; Federica Ilardi; Giuseppe Carotenuto; Gabriele Giacomo Schiattarella; Giovanni Esposito Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2011-04-13 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Elizabeth Bucholz; Ketan Ghaghada; Yi Qi; Srinivasan Mukundan; Howard A Rockman; G Allan Johnson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ming De Lin; Greta Toncheva; Giao Nguyen; Sangroh Kim; Colin Anderson-Evans; G Allan Johnson; Terry T Yoshizumi Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Lars Stegger; Edwin Heijman; Klaus P Schäfers; Klaas Nicolay; Michael A Schäfers; Gustav J Strijkers Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Carlos Zaragoza; Carmen Gomez-Guerrero; Jose Luis Martin-Ventura; Luis Blanco-Colio; Begoña Lavin; Beñat Mallavia; Carlos Tarin; Sebastian Mas; Alberto Ortiz; Jesus Egido Journal: J Biomed Biotechnol Date: 2011-02-16
Authors: G J de Jonge; P M A van Ooijen; J Overbosch; A Litcheva Gueorguieva; M C Janssen-van der Weide; M Oudkerk Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-10-23 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Reza Golestani; Chao Wu; René A Tio; Clark J Zeebregts; Artiom D Petrov; Freek J Beekman; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Hendrikus H Boersma; Riemer H J A Slart Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-01-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Alexandra B Ysasi; Willi L Wagner; Robert D Bennett; Maximilian Ackermann; Cristian D Valenzuela; Janeil Belle; Akira Tsuda; Moritz A Konerding; Steven J Mentzer Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Matthias N van Oosterom; Rob Kreuger; Tessa Buckle; Wendy A Mahn; Anton Bunschoten; Lee Josephson; Fijs Wb van Leeuwen; Freek J Beekman Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2014-10-11 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: D M Tanaka; M M D Romano; E E V Carvalho; L F L Oliveira; H C D Souza; B C Maciel; H C Salgado; R Fazan-Júnior; M V Simões Journal: Braz J Med Biol Res Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 2.590