Jonathan B Moody1, Keri M Hiller2, Benjamin C Lee3, Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière3, James R Corbett2,4,5, Richard L Weinberg2,4,5, Venkatesh L Murthy2,4,5, Edward P Ficaro3,2,5. 1. INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions, 3025 Boardwalk Street, Suite 200, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108, USA. jmoody@inviasolutions.com. 2. Cardiac Imaging Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions, 3025 Boardwalk Street, Suite 200, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108, USA. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 82Rb kinetics may distinguish scar from viable but dysfunctional (hibernating) myocardium. We sought to define the relationship between 82Rb kinetics and myocardial viability compared with conventional 82Rb and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) perfusion-metabolism PET imaging. METHODS: Consecutive patients (N = 120) referred for evaluation of myocardial viability prior to revascularization and normal volunteers (N = 37) were reviewed. Dynamic 82Rb 3D PET data were acquired at rest. 18F-FDG 3D PET data were acquired after metabolic preparation using a standardized hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp. 82Rb kinetic parameters K1, k2, and partition coefficient (KP) were estimated by compartmental modeling RESULTS: Segmental 82Rb k2 and KP differed significantly between scarred and hibernating segments identified by Rb-FDG perfusion-metabolism (k2, 0.42 ± 0.25 vs. 0.22 ± 0.09 min-1; P < .0001; KP, 1.33 ± 0.62 vs. 2.25 ± 0.98 ml/g; P < .0001). As compared to Rb-FDG analysis, segmental Rb KP had a c-index, sensitivity and specificity of 0.809, 76% and 84%, respectively, for distinguishing hibernating and scarred segments. Segmental k2 performed similarly, but with lower specificity (75%, P < .001) CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, 82Rb kinetic parameters k2 and KP, which are readily estimated using a compartmental model commonly used for myocardial blood flow, reliably differentiated hibernating myocardium and scar. Further study is necessary to evaluate their clinical utility for predicting benefit after revascularization.
BACKGROUND:82Rb kinetics may distinguish scar from viable but dysfunctional (hibernating) myocardium. We sought to define the relationship between 82Rb kinetics and myocardial viability compared with conventional 82Rb and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) perfusion-metabolism PET imaging. METHODS: Consecutive patients (N = 120) referred for evaluation of myocardial viability prior to revascularization and normal volunteers (N = 37) were reviewed. Dynamic 82Rb 3D PET data were acquired at rest. 18F-FDG 3D PET data were acquired after metabolic preparation using a standardized hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp. 82Rb kinetic parameters K1, k2, and partition coefficient (KP) were estimated by compartmental modeling RESULTS: Segmental 82Rb k2 and KP differed significantly between scarred and hibernating segments identified by Rb-FDG perfusion-metabolism (k2, 0.42 ± 0.25 vs. 0.22 ± 0.09 min-1; P < .0001; KP, 1.33 ± 0.62 vs. 2.25 ± 0.98 ml/g; P < .0001). As compared to Rb-FDG analysis, segmental Rb KP had a c-index, sensitivity and specificity of 0.809, 76% and 84%, respectively, for distinguishing hibernating and scarred segments. Segmental k2 performed similarly, but with lower specificity (75%, P < .001) CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, 82Rb kinetic parameters k2 and KP, which are readily estimated using a compartmental model commonly used for myocardial blood flow, reliably differentiated hibernating myocardium and scar. Further study is necessary to evaluate their clinical utility for predicting benefit after revascularization.
Authors: Wael AlJaroudi; Wael A Jaber; Richard A Grimm; Thomas Marwick; Manuel D Cerqueira Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Ran Klein; Jennifer M Renaud; Maria C Ziadi; Stephanie L Thorn; Andy Adler; Rob S Beanlands; Robert A deKemp Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: John O Prior; Gilles Allenbach; Ines Valenta; Marek Kosinski; Cyrill Burger; Francis R Verdun; Angelika Bischof Delaloye; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mireille Lortie; Rob S B Beanlands; Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Ran Klein; Jean N Dasilva; Robert A DeKemp Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-07-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sergey V Nesterov; Emmanuel Deshayes; John O Prior; Juhani M Knuuti; Roberto Sciagrà; Leonardo Settimo; Jerome M Declerck; Xiao-Bo Pan; Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Chietsugu Katoh; Piotr J Slomka; Guido Germano; Chunlei Han; Ville Aalto; Adam M Alessio; Edward P Ficaro; Benjamin C Lee; Stephan G Nekolla; Kilem L Gwet; Robert A deKemp; Ran Klein; John Dickson; James A Case; Timothy Bateman Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-10-08
Authors: Piotr J Slomka; Jonathan B Moody; Robert J H Miller; Jennifer M Renaud; Edward P Ficaro; Ernest V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 5.952