Netherlands Heart Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 90–98 | Cite as

Cardiac PET-CT: advanced hybrid imaging for the detection of coronary artery disease

  • P. Knaapen
  • S. de Haan
  • O. S. Hoekstra
  • R. Halbmeijer
  • Y. E. Appelman
  • J. G. J. Groothuis
  • E. F. Comans
  • M. R. Meijerink
  • A. A. Lammertsma
  • M. Lubberink
  • M. J. W. Götte
  • A. C. van Rossum
review article
Coronary Artery Disease Positron-Emission Tomography Tomography X-Ray Computed 


Hybrid imaging of positron emission tomography (PET) together with computed tomography (CT) is rapidly emerging. In cardiology, this new advanced hybrid imaging modality allows quantification of cardiac perfusion in combination with assessment of coronary anatomy within a single scanning session of less than 45 minutes. The near-simultaneous anatomical evaluation of coronary arteries using CT and corresponding functional status using PET provides a wealth of complementary information in patients who are being evaluated for (suspected) coronary artery disease, and could help guide clinical patient management in a novel manner. Clinical experience gained with this recently introduced advanced hybrid imaging tool, however, is still limited and its implementation into daily clinical practice remains largely unchartered territory. This review discusses principles of perfusion PET, its diagnostic accuracy, and potential clinical applications of cardiac PET-CT in patients with ischaemic heart disease. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:90–8.)


  1. 1.
    Knaapen P, Lubberink M. Cardiac positron emission tomography: myocardial perfusion and metabolism in clinical practice. Clin Res Cardiol. 2008;97:791–6.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaufmann PA, Camici PG. Myocardial blood flow measurement by PET: technical aspects and clinical applications. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:75–88.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Di Carli MF, Hachamovitch R. New technology for noninvasive evaluation of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2007;115:1464–80.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Le Guludec D, Lautamaki R, Knuuti J, Bax JJ, Bengel FM. Present and future of clinical cardiovascular PET imaging in Europe a position statement by the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology (ECNC). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1709–24.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schroeder S, Achenbach S, Bengel F, Burgstahler C, Cademartiri F, de Feyter P, et al. Cardiac computed tomography: indications, applications, limitations, and training requirements: report of a Writing Group deployed by the Working Group Nuclear Cardiology and Cardiac CT of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:531–56.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Camici PG. Positron emission tomography and myocardial imaging. Heart. 2000;83:475–80.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iida H, Kanno I, Takahashi A, Miura S, Murakami M, Takahashi K, et al. Measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow with H215O and dynamic positron-emission tomography. Strategy for quantification in relation to the partial-volume effect. Circulation. 1988;78:104–15.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Knaapen P, Boellaard R, Gotte MJ, van der Weerdt AP, Visser CA, Lammertsma AA, et al. The perfusable tissue index: a marker of myocardial viability. J Nucl Cardiol. 2003;10:684–91.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boellaard R, Knaapen P, Rijbroek A, Luurtsema GJ, Lammertsma AA. Evaluation of basis function and linear least squares methods for generating parametric blood flow images using 15O-water and Positron Emission Tomography. Mol Imaging Biol. 2005;7:273–85.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Machac J. Cardiac positron emission tomography imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:17–36.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bateman TM, Heller GV, McGhie AI, Friedman JD, Case JA, Bryngelson JR, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of rest/stress ECG-gated Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET: comparison with ECGgated Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13:24–33.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yoshinaga K, Katoh C, Noriyasu K, Iwado Y, Furuyama H, Ito Y, et al. Reduction of coronary flow reserve in areas with and without ischemia on stress perfusion imaging in patients with coronary artery disease: a study using oxygen 15-labeled water PET. J Nucl Cardiol. 2003;10:275–83.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parkash R, deKemp RA, Ruddy TD, Kitsikis A, Hart R, Beauchesne L, et al. Potential utility of rubidium 82 PET quantification in patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004;11:440–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Shaw LJ, Kiat H, Cohen I, Cabico JA, et al. Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1998;17;97:535–43.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marwick TH, Shan K, Patel S, Go RT, Lauer MS. Incremental value of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography for prognostic assessment of known or suspected coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1997;80:865–70.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yoshinaga K, Chow BJ, Williams K, Chen L, deKemp RA, Garrard L, et al. What is the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1029–39.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schenker MP, Dorbala S, Hong EC, Rybicki FJ, Hachamovitch R, Kwong RY, et al. Interrelation of coronary calcification, myocardial ischemia, and outcomes in patients with intermediate likelihood of coronary artery disease: a combined positron emission tomography/computed tomography study. Circulation. 2008;117:1693–700.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tio RA, Dabeshlim A, Siebelink HM, de Sutter J, Hillege HL, Zeebregts CJ, et al. Comparison Between the Prognostic Value of Left Ventricular Function and Myocardial Perfusion Reserve in Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:214–9.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stanford W, Thompson BH, Burns TL, Heery SD, Burr MC. Coronary artery calcium quantification at multi-detector row helical CT versus electron-beam CT. Radiology. 2004;230:397–402.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nallamothu BK, Saint S, Bielak LF, Sonnad SS, Peyser PA, Rubenfire M, et al. Electron-beam computed tomography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:833–8.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brown BG, Morse J, Zhao XQ, Cheung M, Marino E, Albers JJ. Electron-beam tomography coronary calcium scores are superior to Framingham risk variables for predicting the measured proximal stenosis burden. Am J Cardiol. 2001;88:23E–26E.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lamont DH, Budoff MJ, Shavelle DM, Shavelle R, Brundage BH, Hagar JM. Coronary calcium scanning adds incremental value to patients with positive stress tests. Am Heart J. 2002;143:861–7.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Rourke RA, Brundage BH, Froelicher VF, Greenland P, Grundy SM, Hachamovitch R, et al. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Expert Consensus Document on electron-beam computed tomography for the diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:326–40.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cheng VY, Lepor NE, Madyoon H, Eshaghian S, Naraghi AL, Shah PK. Presence and severity of noncalcified coronary plaque on 64-slice computed tomographic coronary angiography in patients with zero and low coronary artery calcium. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:1183–6.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pundziute G, Schuijf JD, Jukema JW, Boersma E, Scholte AJ, Kroft LJ, et al. Noninvasive assessment of plaque characteristics with multislice computed tomography coronary angiography in symptomatic diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:1113–9.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pundziute G, Schuijf JD, Jukema JW, Boersma E, de Roos A, van der Wall EE, et al. Prognostic value of multislice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:62–70.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Abdulla J, Abildstrom SZ, Gotzsche O, Christensen E, Kober L, Torp-Pedersen C. 64-multislice detector computed tomography coronary angiography as potential alternative to conventional coronary angiography: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:3042–50.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, Gitter M, Sutherland J, Halamert E, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1724–32.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, Schuijf JD, Cramer MJ, Mollet NR, van Mieghem CA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:2135–44.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Leber AW, Knez A, von Ziegler F, Becker A, Nikolaou K, Paul S, et al. Quantification of obstructive and nonobstructive coronary lesions by 64-slice computed tomography: a comparative study with quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:147–54.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hacker M, Jakobs T, Matthiesen F, Vollmar C, Nikolaou K, Becker C, et al. Comparison of spiral multidetector CT angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging in the noninvasive detection of functionally relevant coronary artery lesions: first clinical experiences. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1294–300.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schuijf JD, Wijns W, Jukema JW, Atsma DE, de Roos A, Lamb HJ, et al. Relationship between noninvasive coronary angiography with multi-slice computed tomography and myocardial perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:2508–14.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rispler S, Keidar Z, Ghersin E, Roguin A, Soil A, Dragu R, et al. Integrated single-photon emission computed tomography and computed tomography coronary angiography for the assessment of hemodynamically significant coronary artery lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:1059–67.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Di Carli MF, Dorbala S, Curillova Z, Kwong RJ, Goldhaber SZ, Rybicki FJ, et al. Relationship between CT coronary angiography and stress perfusion imaging in patients with suspected ischemic heart disease assessed by integrated PET-CT imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:799–809.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    van Werkhoven JM, Schuijf JD, Gaemperli O, Jukema JW, Boersma E, Wijns W, et al. Prognostic value of multislice computed tomography and gated single-photon emission computed tomography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:623–32.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Camici PG, Crea F. Coronary microvascular dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:830–40.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Di Carli MF, Dorbala S, Meserve J, El Fakhri G, Sitek A, Moore SC. Clinical myocardial perfusion PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:783–93.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hesse B, Tagil K, Cuocolo A, Anagnostopoulos C, Bardies M, Bax J, et al. EANM/ESC procedural guidelines for myocardial perfusion imaging in nuclear cardiology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005l;32:855–97.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Herzog BA, Husmann L, Landmesser U, Kaufmann PA. Lowdose computed tomography coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging: cardiac hybrid imaging below 3mSv. Eur Heart J. 2009;30:644.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, Huber E, Zankl M, Martinoff S, et al. Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation. 2006;113:1305–10.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jakobs TF, Becker CR, Ohnesorge B, Flohr T, Suess C, Schoepf UJ, et al. Multislice helical CT of the heart with retrospective ECG gating: reduction of radiation exposure by ECG-controlled tube current modulation. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:1081–6.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Knuuti J. Cardiac hybrid imaging with low radiation dose. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:743–4.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Husmann L, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, Adda O, Treyer V, Wyss CA, et al. Feasibility of low-dose coronary CT angiography: first experience with prospective ECG-gating. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:191–7.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kajander S, Ukkonen H, Sipila H, Teras M, Knuuti J. Low radiation dose imaging of myocardial perfusion and coronary angiography with a hybrid PET/CT scanner. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2009;29:81–8.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chareonthaitawee P, Kaufmann PA, Rimoldi O, Camici PG. Heterogeneity of resting and hyperemic myocardial blood flow in healthy humans. Cardiovasc Res. 2001;50:151–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Knaapen
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. de Haan
  • O. S. Hoekstra
  • R. Halbmeijer
  • Y. E. Appelman
  • J. G. J. Groothuis
  • E. F. Comans
  • M. R. Meijerink
  • A. A. Lammertsma
  • M. Lubberink
  • M. J. W. Götte
  • A. C. van Rossum
  1. 1.Department of CardiologyVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamthe Netherlands
  2. 2.

Personalised recommendations