PURPOSE: Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) with 99mTc-sestamibi (sestamibi) SPECT and rubidium-82 (82Rb) PET both allow for combined assessment of perfusion and left ventricular (LV) function. We sought to compare parameters of LV function obtained with both methods using a single dipyridamole stress dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A group of 221 consecutive patients (65.2 ± 10.4 years, 52.9% male) underwent consecutive sestamibi and 82Rb MPI after a single dipyridamole stress dose. Sestamibi and 82Rb summed rest (SRS), stress (SSS) and difference (SDS) scores, and LV end-diastolic (EDV) and end-systolic (ESV) volumes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were compared. RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis showed that with increasing ESV and EDV the difference between the two perfusion tracers increased both at rest and post-stress. The mean difference in EDV and ESV between the two perfusion tracers at rest could both be independently explained by the 82Rb SDS and the sestamibi SRS. The combined models explained approximately 30% of the variation in these volumes between the two perfusion tracers (R2 = 0.261, p = 0.005; R2 = 0.296, p < 0.001, for EDV and ESV respectively). However, the mean difference in LVEF between sestamibi and 82Rb showed no significant trend post-stress (R2 = 0.001, p = 0.70) and only a modest linear increase with increasing LVEF values at rest (R2 = 0.032, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in left ventricular volumes between sestamibi and 82Rb MPI increase with increasing volumes. However, these differences did only marginally affect LVEF between sestamibi and 82Rb. In clinical practice these results should be taken into account when comparing functional derived parameters between sestamibi and 82Rb MPI.
PURPOSE: Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) with 99mTc-sestamibi (sestamibi) SPECT and rubidium-82 (82Rb) PET both allow for combined assessment of perfusion and left ventricular (LV) function. We sought to compare parameters of LV function obtained with both methods using a single dipyridamole stress dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A group of 221 consecutive patients (65.2 ± 10.4 years, 52.9% male) underwent consecutive sestamibi and 82Rb MPI after a single dipyridamole stress dose. Sestamibi and 82Rb summed rest (SRS), stress (SSS) and difference (SDS) scores, and LV end-diastolic (EDV) and end-systolic (ESV) volumes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were compared. RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis showed that with increasing ESV and EDV the difference between the two perfusion tracers increased both at rest and post-stress. The mean difference in EDV and ESV between the two perfusion tracers at rest could both be independently explained by the 82Rb SDS and the sestamibiSRS. The combined models explained approximately 30% of the variation in these volumes between the two perfusion tracers (R2 = 0.261, p = 0.005; R2 = 0.296, p < 0.001, for EDV and ESV respectively). However, the mean difference in LVEF between sestamibi and 82Rb showed no significant trend post-stress (R2 = 0.001, p = 0.70) and only a modest linear increase with increasing LVEF values at rest (R2 = 0.032, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in left ventricular volumes between sestamibi and 82Rb MPI increase with increasing volumes. However, these differences did only marginally affect LVEF between sestamibi and 82Rb. In clinical practice these results should be taken into account when comparing functional derived parameters between sestamibi and 82Rb MPI.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: G Ambrosio; S Betocchi; L Pace; M A Losi; P Perrone-Filardi; A Soricelli; F Piscione; J Taube; F Squame; M Salvatore; J L Weiss; M Chiariello Journal: Circulation Date: 1996-11-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Danilo Neglia; Daniele Rovai; Chiara Caselli; Mikko Pietila; Anna Teresinska; Santiago Aguadé-Bruix; Maria Nazarena Pizzi; Giancarlo Todiere; Alessia Gimelli; Stephen Schroeder; Tanja Drosch; Rosa Poddighe; Giancarlo Casolo; Constantinos Anagnostopoulos; Francesca Pugliese; Francois Rouzet; Dominique Le Guludec; Francesco Cappelli; Serafina Valente; Gian Franco Gensini; Camilla Zawaideh; Selene Capitanio; Gianmario Sambuceti; Fabio Marsico; Pasquale Perrone Filardi; Covadonga Fernández-Golfín; Luis M Rincón; Frank P Graner; Michiel A de Graaf; Michael Fiechter; Julia Stehli; Oliver Gaemperli; Eliana Reyes; Sandy Nkomo; Maija Mäki; Valentina Lorenzoni; Giuseppe Turchetti; Clara Carpeggiani; Martina Marinelli; Stefano Puzzuoli; Maurizio Mangione; Paolo Marcheschi; Fabio Mariani; Daniela Giannessi; Stephan Nekolla; Massimo Lombardi; Rosa Sicari; Arthur J H A Scholte; José L Zamorano; Philipp A Kaufmann; S Richard Underwood; Juhani Knuuti Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: J Lette; J L Tatum; S Fraser; D D Miller; D D Waters; G Heller; E B Stanton; H S Bom; J Leppo; S Nattel Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 1995 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
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