Felix Nensa1, E Tezgah2, K Schweins3, J Goebel4, P Heusch5, K Nassenstein4, T Schlosser4, T D Poeppel6. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45147, Essen, Germany. felix.nensa@gmail.com. 2. Clinic for Cardiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 3. Department of Diet and Nutrition, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 4. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45147, Essen, Germany. 5. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Dusseldorf, University of Dusseldorf, Dūsseldorf, Germany. 6. Clinic for Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of increased glucose uptake in inflammatory or malignant myocardial disease using PET/MRI relies on uptake suppression in normal myocardium. We evaluated the efficacy of a ≥24 hours high-fat, low-carbohydrate, and protein-permitted diet (HFLCPP) in combination with unfractionated heparin for suppression of "physiologic" myocardial glucose uptake. METHODS: PET/MRI was successfully performed in 89 patients. HFLCPP was started ≥24 hours prior to PET/MRI. All patients received i.v. injection of unfractionated heparin (50 IU·kg-1) 15 minutes prior to FDG administration. Left ventricular FDG uptake was visually evaluated by two readers. Diffuse myocardial uptake exceeding liver uptake, isolated uptake in the lateral wall, or diffuse uptake in the entire circumference of the heart base were defined as failed suppression. Homogeneous myocardial uptake below liver uptake with/without focal uptake was defined as successful suppression. RESULTS: Success rate was 84%. Suppression was unsuccessful in 14 patients. No significant influence of gender (P = .40) or age (P = .21) was found. However, insufficient suppression was more common in patients younger than 45 years (20% vs 7%). PET/MR imaging completion rate was >97%. CONCLUSION: A HFLCPP diet in combination with unfractionated heparin was successfully implemented for cardiac PET/MRI and resulted in a sufficient suppression of myocardial FDG uptake in 84% of patients.
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of increased glucose uptake in inflammatory or malignant myocardial disease using PET/MRI relies on uptake suppression in normal myocardium. We evaluated the efficacy of a ≥24 hours high-fat, low-carbohydrate, and protein-permitted diet (HFLCPP) in combination with unfractionated heparin for suppression of "physiologic" myocardial glucose uptake. METHODS: PET/MRI was successfully performed in 89 patients. HFLCPP was started ≥24 hours prior to PET/MRI. All patients received i.v. injection of unfractionated heparin (50 IU·kg-1) 15 minutes prior to FDG administration. Left ventricular FDG uptake was visually evaluated by two readers. Diffuse myocardial uptake exceeding liver uptake, isolated uptake in the lateral wall, or diffuse uptake in the entire circumference of the heart base were defined as failed suppression. Homogeneous myocardial uptake below liver uptake with/without focal uptake was defined as successful suppression. RESULTS: Success rate was 84%. Suppression was unsuccessful in 14 patients. No significant influence of gender (P = .40) or age (P = .21) was found. However, insufficient suppression was more common in patients younger than 45 years (20% vs 7%). PET/MR imaging completion rate was >97%. CONCLUSION: A HFLCPP diet in combination with unfractionated heparin was successfully implemented for cardiac PET/MRI and resulted in a sufficient suppression of myocardial FDG uptake in 84% of patients.
Authors: Felix Nensa; Thorsten D Poeppel; Karsten Beiderwellen; Juliane Schelhorn; Amir A Mahabadi; Raimund Erbel; Philipp Heusch; Kai Nassenstein; Andreas Bockisch; Michael Forsting; Thomas Schlosser Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R I Shortman; D Neriman; J Hoath; L Millner; R Endozo; G Azzopardi; C O'Meara; J Bomanji; A M Groves Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Sophia R Larson; Justin A Pieper; Edward A Hulten; Edward P Ficaro; James R Corbett; Venkatesh L Murthy; Richard L Weinberg Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Felix Nensa; Julia Kloth; Ercan Tezgah; Thorsten D Poeppel; Philipp Heusch; Juliane Goebel; Kai Nassenstein; Thomas Schlosser Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Patrick Krumm; Stefanie Mangold; Sergios Gatidis; Konstantin Nikolaou; Felix Nensa; Fabian Bamberg; Christian la Fougère Journal: Jpn J Radiol Date: 2018-03-10 Impact factor: 2.374
Authors: Brett W Sperry; Timothy M Bateman; Esma A Akin; Paco E Bravo; Wengen Chen; Vasken Dilsizian; Fabien Hyafil; Yiu Ming Khor; Robert J H Miller; Riemer H J A Slart; Piotr Slomka; Hein Verberne; Edward J Miller; Chi Liu Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 3.872
Authors: H Smailovic; B Wilk; G Wisenberg; J Sykes; J Butler; J Hicks; J D Thiessen; F S Prato Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 3.872
Authors: C Lücke; B Oppolzer; P Werner; B Foldyna; P Lurz; T Jochimsen; B Brenneis; L Lehmkuhl; B Sattler; M Grothoff; H Barthel; O Sabri; M Gutberlet Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 5.315