UNLABELLED: This study was designed to compare the tracer kinetics between 99mTc-sestamibi and 99mTc-tetrofosmin in a heterogeneous group of 24 patients admitted for routine perfusion imaging. METHODS: Twelve patients were studied with 99mTc-tetrofosmin and 12 with 99mTc-sestamibi. In each group, six patients had a low likelihood for coronary artery disease, and six patients had angiographically proven coronary artery stenoses of > 75% or previous myocardial infarction. Analysis of myocardial and liver uptake and clearance as well as target-to-organ contrasts were performed with planar stress images. RESULTS: Myocardial uptake of 99mTc-tetrofosmin was higher from 5 min (0.37 +/- 0.12 counts/pixel x MBq-1, p = 0.008) to 60 min (0.32 +/- 0.10 counts/pixel x MBq-1, p = 0.04) compared to 99mTc-sestamibi. Biological half-life for 99mTc-tetrofosmin (278 +/- 32 min) in normal myocardium was significantly shorter (p = 0.008) than for 99mTc-sestamibi (680 +/- 45 min). Biological liver half-life for 99mTc-tetrofosmin (67 +/- 16 min) was also significantly shorter (p = 0.02) than for 99mTc-sestamibi (136 +/- 18 min). Heart-to-lung ratios for 99mTc-tetrofosmin (2.49 +/- 0.43 at 5 min to 2.66 +/- 0.55 at 60 min) and 99mTc-sestamibi (2.52 +/- 0.37 at 5 min to 2.95 +/- 0.50 at 60 min) were similar. Whereas heart-to-liver ratios for 99mTc-tetrofosmin (1.04 +/- 0.24 at 5 min, increasing to 1.51 +/- 0.44 at 60 min) were significantly higher from 30-60 min postinjection (p = 0.05 at 30 min to p = 0.02 at 60 min) compared to the 99mTc-sestamibi (0.83 + 0.16 at 5 min to 1.08 +/- 0.27 at 60 min). CONCLUSION: Technetium-99m-tetrofosmin displays a shorter myocardial half-life compared to 99mTc-sestamibi. The rapid liver clearance of 99mTc-tetrofosmin, combined with comparable myocardial retention, resulted in higher heart-to-liver ratios but similar heart-to-lung contrasts compared to 99mTc-sestamibi from 30-60 min.
UNLABELLED: This study was designed to compare the tracer kinetics between 99mTc-sestamibi and 99mTc-tetrofosmin in a heterogeneous group of 24 patients admitted for routine perfusion imaging. METHODS: Twelve patients were studied with 99mTc-tetrofosmin and 12 with 99mTc-sestamibi. In each group, six patients had a low likelihood for coronary artery disease, and six patients had angiographically proven coronary artery stenoses of > 75% or previous myocardial infarction. Analysis of myocardial and liver uptake and clearance as well as target-to-organ contrasts were performed with planar stress images. RESULTS: Myocardial uptake of 99mTc-tetrofosmin was higher from 5 min (0.37 +/- 0.12 counts/pixel x MBq-1, p = 0.008) to 60 min (0.32 +/- 0.10 counts/pixel x MBq-1, p = 0.04) compared to 99mTc-sestamibi. Biological half-life for 99mTc-tetrofosmin (278 +/- 32 min) in normal myocardium was significantly shorter (p = 0.008) than for 99mTc-sestamibi (680 +/- 45 min). Biological liver half-life for 99mTc-tetrofosmin (67 +/- 16 min) was also significantly shorter (p = 0.02) than for 99mTc-sestamibi (136 +/- 18 min). Heart-to-lung ratios for 99mTc-tetrofosmin (2.49 +/- 0.43 at 5 min to 2.66 +/- 0.55 at 60 min) and 99mTc-sestamibi (2.52 +/- 0.37 at 5 min to 2.95 +/- 0.50 at 60 min) were similar. Whereas heart-to-liver ratios for 99mTc-tetrofosmin (1.04 +/- 0.24 at 5 min, increasing to 1.51 +/- 0.44 at 60 min) were significantly higher from 30-60 min postinjection (p = 0.05 at 30 min to p = 0.02 at 60 min) compared to the 99mTc-sestamibi (0.83 + 0.16 at 5 min to 1.08 +/- 0.27 at 60 min). CONCLUSION:Technetium-99m-tetrofosmin displays a shorter myocardial half-life compared to 99mTc-sestamibi. The rapid liver clearance of 99mTc-tetrofosmin, combined with comparable myocardial retention, resulted in higher heart-to-liver ratios but similar heart-to-lung contrasts compared to 99mTc-sestamibi from 30-60 min.
Authors: Reginald G E J Groutars; J Fred Verzijlbergen; Monique M C Tiel-van Buul; Aeilco H Zwinderman; Carl A P L Ascoop; Norbert M van Hemel; Ernst E van der Wall Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Emilio Bombardieri; Cumali Aktolun; Richard P Baum; Angelika Bishof-Delaloye; John Buscombe; Jean François Chatal; Lorenzo Maffioli; Roy Moncayo; Luc Mortelmans; Sven N Reske Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Min Young Lee; Sang Hun Lee; Jae Hong Park; Jung Sun Heo; Yu Jin Lee; Han Na Suh; Jung Jun Min; Young Soon Seo; Ho Jae Han Journal: J Vet Sci Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 1.672
Authors: B Hesse; K Tägil; A Cuocolo; C Anagnostopoulos; M Bardiés; J Bax; F Bengel; E Busemann Sokole; G Davies; M Dondi; L Edenbrandt; P Franken; A Kjaer; J Knuuti; M Lassmann; M Ljungberg; C Marcassa; P Y Marie; F McKiddie; M O'Connor; E Prvulovich; R Underwood; B van Eck-Smit Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: R G Groutars; J F Verzijlbergen; A J Muller; C A Ascoop; M M Tiel-van Buul; A H Zwinderman; N M van Hemel; E E van der Wall Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2000 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: M M Boomsma; M G Niemeyer; E E van der Wall; B L van Eck-Smit; A H Zwinderman; J H Boomsma; E K Pauwels Journal: Int J Card Imaging Date: 1998-04
Authors: Zhonglin Liu; Gail D Stevenson; Harrison H Barrett; George A Kastis; Michael Bettan; Lars R Furenlid; Donald W Wilson; James M Woolfenden Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 2.408