Advertisement

Feasibility of dynamic stress 201Tl/rest 99mTc-tetrofosmin single photon emission computed tomography for quantification of myocardial perfusion reserve in patients with stable coronary artery disease

  • Sangwon Han
  • Young-Hak Kim
  • Jung-Min Ahn
  • Soo-Jin Kang
  • Jungsu S. Oh
  • Eonwoo Shin
  • Changhwan Sung
  • Sun Young Chae
  • Seung-Jung Park
  • Gillan Grimberg
  • Gil Kovalski
  • Dae Hyuk Moon
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

We evaluated the feasibility of dynamic stress 201Tl/rest 99mTc-tetrofosmin SPECT imaging using a cardiac camera equipped with cadmium-zinc-telluride detectors for the quantification of myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR).

Methods

Subjects with stable known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) who had undergone or were scheduled to undergo fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement were prospectively enrolled. Dynamic stress 201Tl/rest 99mTc-tetrofosmin SPECT imaging was performed using a dedicated multiple pinhole SPECT camera with cadmium-zinc-telluride detectors. MPR was derived using Corridor4DM software.

Results

A total of 34 subjects were enrolled (25 men and 9 women; mean age 60.4 years). FFR was measured in 65 coronary arteries with intermediate lesions. The average global MPR was 2.58 ± 1.03. Global MPR was associated with the extent of CAD (P = 0.028) and global summed stress score (r = −0.60, P < 0.001). Regional MPR showed a significant correlation with diameter stenosis (r = −0.57, P < 0.001), minimum lumen diameter (r = 0.50, P < 0.001), summed stress score (r = −0.52, P < 0.001) and FFR (r = 0.52, P < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of MPR for the diagnosis of functionally significant stenosis (FFR ≤0.8) was 0.79 (P < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of regional MPR were 67% and 83%, respectively, using a cut-off value of 2.0.

Conclusion

Dynamic stress 201Tl/rest 99mTc-tetrofosmin SPECT imaging and quantification of MPR is feasible in patients with stable CAD. The preliminary results of this study in a small number of patients require confirmation in a larger cohort to determine their implications for bolstering the role of SPECT imaging in the diagnosis and risk prediction of CAD.

Keywords

Cadmium-zinc-telluride Single photon emission computed tomography Myocardial perfusion reserve Fractional flow reserve 

Notes

Funding

This study was supported by the Radiation Technology Development Program funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning (grant number: NRF-2016M2A2A7A03913219 to Dae Hyuk Moon).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

Dae Hyuk Moon has received research grants from GE Healthcare. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

259_2018_4057_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (326 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 325 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams K, Guo A, Renaud JM, Chow BJ, et al. Does quantification of myocardial flow reserve using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography facilitate detection of multivessel coronary artery disease? J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:670–80.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fiechter M, Ghadri JR, Gebhard C, Fuchs TA, Pazhenkottil AP, Nkoulou RN, et al. Diagnostic value of 13N-ammonia myocardial perfusion PET: added value of myocardial flow reserve. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1230–4.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herzog BA, Husmann L, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, Siegrist PT, Tay FM, et al. Long-term prognostic value of 13N-ammonia myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography added value of coronary flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:150–6.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Hainer J, Gaber M, Di Carli G, et al. Improved cardiac risk assessment with noninvasive measures of coronary flow reserve. Circulation. 2011;124:2215–24.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams KA, Guo A, Chow BJ, Renaud JM, et al. Impaired myocardial flow reserve on rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging predicts adverse outcomes in patients assessed for myocardial ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:740–8.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taqueti VR, Hachamovitch R, Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Hainer J, et al. Global coronary flow reserve is associated with adverse cardiovascular events independently of luminal angiographic severity and modifies the effect of early revascularization. Circulation. 2015;131:19–27.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bocher M, Blevis IM, Tsukerman L, Shrem Y, Kovalski G, Volokh L. A fast cardiac gamma camera with dynamic SPECT capabilities: design, system validation and future potential. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1887–902.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wells RG, Timmins R, Klein R, Lockwood J, Marvin B, Wei L, et al. Dynamic SPECT measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow in a porcine model. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1685–91.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ben-Haim S, Murthy VL, Breault C, Allie R, Sitek A, Roth N, et al. Quantification of myocardial perfusion reserve using dynamic SPECT imaging in humans: a feasibility study. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:873–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bouallègue FB, Roubille F, Lattuca B, Cung TT, Macia J-C, Gervasoni R, et al. SPECT myocardial perfusion reserve in patients with multivessel coronary disease: correlation with angiographic findings and invasive fractional flow reserve measurements. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1712–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shiraishi S, Sakamoto F, Tsuda N, Yoshida M, Tomiguchi S, Utsunomiya D, et al. Prediction of left main or 3-vessel disease using myocardial perfusion reserve on dynamic thallium-201 single-photon emission computed tomography with a semiconductor gamma camera. Circ J. 2015;79:623–31.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nkoulou R, Fuchs TA, Pazhenkottil AP, Kuest SM, Ghadri JR, Stehli J, et al. Absolute myocardial blood flow and flow reserve assessed by gated SPECT with cadmium–zinc–telluride detectors using 99mTc-tetrofosmin: head-to-head comparison with 13N-ammonia PET. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1887–92.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berman DS, Kang X, Tamarappoo B, Wolak A, Hayes SW, Nakazato R, et al. Stress thallium-201/rest technetium-99m sequential dual isotope high-speed myocardial perfusion imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:273–82.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NH, Barbato E, Tonino P, Piroth Z, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1208–17.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ryan TJ, Bauman WB, Kennedy JW, Kereiakes DJ, King SB 3rd, McCallister BD, et al. Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Committee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). Circulation. 1993;88:2987–3007.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meijboom WB, Van Mieghem CA, van Pelt N, Weustink A, Pugliese F, Mollet NR, et al. Comprehensive assessment of coronary artery stenoses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:636–43.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kolthammer JA, Muzic RF. Optimized dynamic framing for PET-based myocardial blood flow estimation. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:5783–801.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mattsson S, Johansson L, Leide Svegborn S, Liniecki J, Nosske D, Riklund KA, et al. Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals: a compendium of current information related to frequently used substances. Ann ICRP. 2015;44:7–321.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee BC, Moody JB, Weinberg RL, Corbett JR, Ficaro EP, Murthy VL. Optimization of temporal sampling for (82)rubidium PET myocardial blood flow quantification. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1517–29.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leppo JA, Meerdink DJ. Comparison of the myocardial uptake of a technetium-labeled isonitrile analogue and thallium. Circ Res. 1989;65:632–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shrestha U, Sciammarella M, Alhassen F, Yeghiazarians Y, Ellin J, Verdin E, et al. Measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow in humans using dynamic cardiac SPECT and 99mTc-tetrofosmin: method and validation. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:268–77.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim Y-H, Ahn J-M, Park D-W, Song HG, Lee J-Y, Kim W-J, et al. Impact of ischemia-guided revascularization with myocardial perfusion imaging for patients with multivessel coronary disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:181–90.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cerqueira MD, Allman KC, Ficaro EP, Hansen CL, Nichols KJ, Thompson RC, et al. Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:709–18.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Echavarria-Pinto M, Escaned J, Macias E, Medina M, Gonzalo N, Petraco R, et al. Disturbed coronary hemodynamics in vessels with intermediate stenoses evaluated with fractional flow reserve: a combined analysis of epicardial and microcirculatory involvement in ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 2013;128:2557–66.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stuijfzand WJ, Uusitalo V, Kero T, Danad I, Rijnierse MT, Saraste A, et al. Relative flow reserve derived from quantitative perfusion imaging may not outperform stress myocardial blood flow for identification of hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:e002400.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Johnson NP, Kirkeeide RL, Gould KLI. Discordance of coronary flow reserve and fractional flow reserve due to methodology or clinically relevant coronary pathophysiology? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:193–202.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meuwissen M, Chamuleau SA, Siebes M, de Winter RJ, Koch KT, Dijksman LM, et al. The prognostic value of combined intracoronary pressure and blood flow velocity measurements after deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;71:291–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gould KL, Johnson NP, Bateman TM, Beanlands RS, Bengel FM, Bober R, et al. Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1639–53.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pepine CJ, Anderson RD, Sharaf BL, Reis SE, Smith KM, Handberg EM, et al. Coronary microvascular reactivity to adenosine predicts adverse outcome in women evaluated for suspected ischemia: results from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute WISE (Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2825–32.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jespersen L, Hvelplund A, Abildstrom SZ, Pedersen F, Galatius S, Madsen JK, et al. Stable angina pectoris with no obstructive coronary artery disease is associated with increased risks of major adverse cardiovascular events. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:734–44.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moody JB, Lee BC, Corbett JR, Ficaro EP, Precision MVL. Accuracy of clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow by dynamic PET: a technical perspective. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:935–51.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vasquez AF, Johnson NP, Gould KL. Variation in quantitative myocardial perfusion due to arterial input selection. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:559–68.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Murthy VL, Lee BC, Sitek A, Naya M, Moody J, Polavarapu V, et al. Comparison and prognostic validation of multiple methods of quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb PET. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1952–8.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sunderland JJ, Pan XB, Declerck J, Menda Y. Dependency of cardiac rubidium-82 imaging quantitative measures on age, gender, vascular territory, and software in a cardiovascular normal population. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:72–84.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lee JM, Kim CH, Koo BK, Hwang D, Park J, Zhang J, et al. Integrated myocardial perfusion imaging diagnostics improve detection of functionally significant coronary artery stenosis by 13N-ammonia positron emission tomography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9:e004768.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gould KL, Pan T, Loghin C, Johnson NP, Guha A, Sdringola S. Frequent diagnostic errors in cardiac PET/CT due to misregistration of CT attenuation and emission PET images: a definitive analysis of causes, consequences, and corrections. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1112–21.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sharir T, Slomka P. Dual-isotope myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging: past, present, and future. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-017-0966-0.
  38. 38.
    Timmins R, Klein R, Petryk J, Marvin B, Wei L, deKemp RA, et al. Reduced dose measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow using dynamic SPECT imaging in a porcine model. Med Phys. 2015;42:5075–83.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kaufmann PA, Gnecchi-Ruscone T, Yap JT, Rimoldi O, Camici PG. Assessment of the reproducibility of baseline and hyperemic myocardial blood flow measurements with 15O-labeled water and PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1848–56.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sangwon Han
    • 1
  • Young-Hak Kim
    • 2
  • Jung-Min Ahn
    • 2
  • Soo-Jin Kang
    • 2
  • Jungsu S. Oh
    • 1
  • Eonwoo Shin
    • 1
  • Changhwan Sung
    • 1
  • Sun Young Chae
    • 1
  • Seung-Jung Park
    • 2
  • Gillan Grimberg
    • 3
  • Gil Kovalski
    • 3
  • Dae Hyuk Moon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Cardiology, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.GE HealthcareHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations