UNLABELLED: Imaging of inflammation early after myocardial infarction (MI) is a promising approach to the guidance of novel molecular interventions that support endogenous healing processes. (18)F-FDG PET has been used, but may be complicated by physiological myocyte uptake. We evaluated the potential of two alternative imaging targets: lactoferrin binding by (68)Ga-citrate and somatostatin receptor binding by (68)Ga-DOTATATE. METHODS: C57Bl/6 mice underwent permanent coronary artery ligation. Serial PET imaging was performed 3 - 7 days after MI using (68)Ga-citrate, (68)Ga-DOTATATE, or (18)F-FDG with ketamine/xylazine suppression of myocyte glucose uptake. Myocardial perfusion was evaluated by (13)N-ammonia PET and cardiac geometry by contrast-enhanced ECG-gated CT. RESULTS: Mice exhibited a perfusion defect of 30 - 40% (of the total left ventricle) with apical anterolateral wall akinesia and thinning on day 7 after MI. (18)F-FDG with ketamine/xylazine suppression demonstrated distinct uptake in the infarct region, as well as in the border zone and remote myocardium. The myocardial standardized uptake value in MI mice was significantly higher than in healthy mice under ketamine/xylazine anaesthesia (1.9 ± 0.4 vs. 1.0 ± 0.1). (68)Ga images exhibited high blood pool activity with no specific myocardial uptake up to 90 min after injection (tissue-to-blood contrast 0.9). (68)Ga-DOTATATE was rapidly cleared from the blood, but myocardial SUV was very low (0.10 ± 0.03). CONCLUSION: Neither (68)Ga nor (68)Ga-DOTATATE is a useful alternative to (18)F-FDG for PET imaging of myocardial inflammation after MI in mice. Among the three tested approaches, (18)F-FDG with ketamine/xylazine suppression of cardiomyocyte uptake remains the most practical imaging marker of post-infarct inflammation.
UNLABELLED: Imaging of inflammation early after myocardial infarction (MI) is a promising approach to the guidance of novel molecular interventions that support endogenous healing processes. (18)F-FDG PET has been used, but may be complicated by physiological myocyte uptake. We evaluated the potential of two alternative imaging targets: lactoferrin binding by (68)Ga-citrate and somatostatin receptor binding by (68)Ga-DOTATATE. METHODS: C57Bl/6 mice underwent permanent coronary artery ligation. Serial PET imaging was performed 3 - 7 days after MI using (68)Ga-citrate, (68)Ga-DOTATATE, or (18)F-FDG with ketamine/xylazine suppression of myocyte glucose uptake. Myocardial perfusion was evaluated by (13)N-ammonia PET and cardiac geometry by contrast-enhanced ECG-gated CT. RESULTS:Mice exhibited a perfusion defect of 30 - 40% (of the total left ventricle) with apical anterolateral wall akinesia and thinning on day 7 after MI. (18)F-FDG with ketamine/xylazine suppression demonstrated distinct uptake in the infarct region, as well as in the border zone and remote myocardium. The myocardial standardized uptake value in MI mice was significantly higher than in healthy mice under ketamine/xylazine anaesthesia (1.9 ± 0.4 vs. 1.0 ± 0.1). (68)Ga images exhibited high blood pool activity with no specific myocardial uptake up to 90 min after injection (tissue-to-blood contrast 0.9). (68)Ga-DOTATATE was rapidly cleared from the blood, but myocardial SUV was very low (0.10 ± 0.03). CONCLUSION: Neither (68)Ga nor (68)Ga-DOTATATE is a useful alternative to (18)F-FDG for PET imaging of myocardial inflammation after MI in mice. Among the three tested approaches, (18)F-FDG with ketamine/xylazine suppression of cardiomyocyte uptake remains the most practical imaging marker of post-infarct inflammation.
Authors: Imke Schatka; Tim Wollenweber; Cathleen Haense; Friederike Brunz; Klaus F Gratz; Frank M Bengel Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-09-25 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Antti Saraste; Iina Laitinen; Eliane Weidl; Moritz Wildgruber; Axel W Weber; Stephan G Nekolla; Gabriele Hölzlwimmer; Irene Esposito; Axel Walch; Pia Leppänen; Irina Lisinen; Peter B Luppa; Seppo Ylä-Herttuala; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Juhani Knuuti; Markus Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-04-20 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Axel Rominger; Tobias Saam; Eva Vogl; Christopher Ubleis; Christian la Fougère; Stefan Förster; Alexander Haug; Paul Cumming; Maximilian F Reiser; Konstantin Nikolaou; Peter Bartenstein; Marcus Hacker Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Maria E Campian; Hein J Verberne; Maxim Hardziyenka; Elisabeth A A de Groot; Astrid F van Moerkerken; Berthe L F van Eck-Smit; Hanno L Tan Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-07-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Xiang Li; Samuel Samnick; Constantin Lapa; Ina Israel; Andreas K Buck; Michael C Kreissl; Wolfgang Bauer Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: J H F Rudd; E A Warburton; T D Fryer; H A Jones; J C Clark; N Antoun; P Johnström; A P Davenport; P J Kirkpatrick; B N Arch; J D Pickard; P L Weissberg Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-06-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: James T Thackeray; Jens P Bankstahl; Yong Wang; Kai C Wollert; Frank M Bengel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-11-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Tobias Borchert; Laura Beitar; Laura B N Langer; Andras Polyak; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Tobias L Ross; Denise Hilfiker-Kleiner; Frank M Bengel; James T Thackeray Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 5.952