Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Review of cardiovascular imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology in 2017. Part 2 of 2: Myocardial perfusion imaging

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology Aims and scope

Abstract

In 2017, the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology published many high-quality articles. In this review, we will summarize a selection of these articles to provide a concise review of the main advancements that have recently occurred in the field. In the first article of this 2-part series, we focused on publications dealing with positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance. This review will place emphasis on myocardial perfusion imaging using single-photon emission computed tomography summarizing advances in the field including prognosis, safety and tolerability, the impact of imaging on management, and the use of novel imaging protocols.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Reproduced with permission from22

Figure 2

Reproduced with permission from59

Figure 3

Reproduced with permission from 68

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AV:

Atrioventricular

CAD:

Coronary artery disease

CTCA:

Computed tomography coronary angiography

CZT:

Cadmium-zinc-telluride

ESRD:

End-stage renal disease

LVEF:

Left ventricular ejection fraction

MI:

Myocardial infarction

MPI:

Myocardial perfusion imaging

References

  1. Hage FG, AlJaroudi WA. Review of cardiovascular imaging in the journal of nuclear cardiology in 2016: Part 2 of 2-myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1190–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. AlJaroudi W, Hage FG. Review of cardiovascular imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology in 2016. Part 1 of 2: Positron emission tomography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;2017:649–56.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hage FG, AlJaroudi WA. Review of cardiovascular imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology in 2015-Part 2 of 2: Myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:493–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. AlJaroudi WA, Hage FG. Review of cardiovascular imaging in the journal of nuclear cardiology in 2015. Part 1 of 2: Plaque imaging, positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;2016:122–30.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hage FG, AlJaroudi WA. Review of cardiovascular imaging in The Journal of Nuclear Cardiology in 2014: Part 2 of 2: Myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:714–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. AlJaroudi WA, Hage FG. Review of cardiovascular imaging in The Journal of Nuclear Cardiology in 2014: Part 1 of 2: Positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and neuronal imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:507–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. AlJaroudi WA, Hage FG. Review of cardiovascular imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology 2017. Part 1 of 2: Positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;2018:320–30.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Shaw LJ, Hage FG, Berman DS, Hachamovitch R, Iskandrian A. Prognosis in the era of comparative effectiveness research: where is nuclear cardiology now and where should it be? J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:1026–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hage FG, Ghimire G, Lester D, McKay J, Bleich S, El-Hajj S, et al. The prognostic value of regadenoson myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:1214–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lima R, Peclat T, Soares T, Ferreira C, Souza AC, Camargo G. Comparison of the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging using a CZT-SPECT camera with a conventional anger camera. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:245–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Henzlova MJ, Duvall WL. What do we know? What do we need to know? J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:252–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yao Z, Zhu H, Li W, Chen C, Wang H, Shi L, et al. Adenosine triphosphate stress myocardial perfusion imaging for risk stratification of patients aged 70 years and older with suspected coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:429–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Saab R, Hage FG. Vasodilator stress agents for myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:434–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gimelli A, Liga R, Duce V, Kusch A, Clemente A, Marzullo P. Accuracy of myocardial perfusion imaging in detecting multivessel coronary artery disease: A cardiac CZT study. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:687–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sabharwal N, Lahiri A. Multi-vessel disease and CZT SPECT. Comparison with coronary angiography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:696–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gimelli A, Liga R, Pasanisi EM, Casagranda M, Marzullo P. Myocardial ischemia in the absence of obstructive coronary lesion: The role of post-stress diastolic dysfunction in detecting early coronary atherosclerosis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1542–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dakik HA. Non-invasive imaging in suspected coronary artery disease: Choosing the right test from the first time. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:523–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Songy B. Detection of non-obstructive coronary artery disease: Is post-stress diastolic dysfunction assessed by myocardial perfusion imaging a useful tool? J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1551–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 (99 m)Tc-tetrofosmin: Method and validation. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:268–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Slomka P, Berman DS, Germano G. Myocardial blood flow from SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:278–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Parikh K, Appis A, Doukky R. Cardiac imaging for the assessment of patients being evaluated for kidney or liver transplantation. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:282–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Doukky R, Fughhi I, Campagnoli T, Wassouf M, Ali A. The prognostic value of regadenoson SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with end-stage renal disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:112–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Miller EO, Schwartz RG. Cardiovascular risk assessment with regadenoson SPECT MPI in patients with end-stage renal disease is safe, effective, and well tolerated: Does it matter? J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:119–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Abuzeid W, Iwanochko RM, Wang X, Kim SJ, Husain M, Lee DS. Prognostic impact of SPECT-MPI after renal transplantation. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:295–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kan K, Bangalore S. Cardiovascular risk stratification after renal transplant: Is SPECT-MPI the answer? J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:304–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ather S, Iskandrian AE, Hage FG. Sources of variability in the measurement of perfusion defect size using commercially available software programs: Are there gender differences? J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1089–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ather S, Iqbal F, Gulotta J, Aljaroudi W, Heo J, Iskandrian AE, et al. Comparison of three commercially available softwares for measuring left ventricular perfusion and function by gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014;21:673–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bajaj NS, Singh S, Farag A, El-Hajj S, Heo J, Iskandrian AE, et al. The prognostic value of non-perfusion variables obtained during vasodilator stress myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:390–413.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Andrikopoulou E, Hage FG. Heart rate response to regadenoson: Making the case for its value in clinical practice. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:575–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hage FG, Dean P, Iqbal F, Heo J, Iskandrian AE. A blunted heart rate response to regadenoson is an independent prognostic indicator in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2011;18:1086–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hage FG, Dean P, Bhatia V, Iqbal F, Heo J, Iskandrian AE. The prognostic value of the heart rate response to adenosine in relation to diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease. Am Heart J. 2011;162:356–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Andrikopoulou E, AlJaroudi WA, Farag A, Lester D, Patel H, Iskandrian AE, et al. The reproducibility and prognostic value of serial measurements of heart rate response to regadenoson during myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1493–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bellam N, Veledar E, Dorbala S, Di Carli MF, Shah S, Eapen D, et al. Prognostic significance of impaired chronotropic response to pharmacologic stress Rb-82 PET. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014;21:233–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Uzendu AI, Iskandrian A, Hage FG. The heart rate response to regadenoson in patients with atrial fibrillation. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-017-1051-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gomez J, Fughhi I, Campagnoli T, Ali A, Doukky R. Impact of integrating heart rate response with perfusion imaging on the prognostic value of regadenoson SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with end-stage renal disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1666–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dakik HA. Abnormal heart rate response with vasodilator stress myocardial perfusion imaging: Relevance to clinical practice. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1672–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Witbrodt B, Goyal A, Kelkar AA, Dorbala S, Chow BJW, Di Carli MF, et al. Prognostic significance of blood pressure response during vasodilator stress Rb-82 positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1966–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Reyes E, Hage FG. The blood pressure response to vasodilator stress does not provide independent prognostic information. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1976–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lester D, El-Hajj S, Farag AA, Bhambhvani P, Tauxe L, Heo J, et al. Prognostic value of transient ischemic dilation with regadenoson myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:1147–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Golzar Y, Olusanya A, Pe N, Dua SG, Golzar J, Gidea C, et al. The significance of automatically measured transient ischemic dilation in identifying severe and extensive coronary artery disease in regadenoson, single-isotope technetium-99 m myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:526–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jameria ZA, Abdallah M, Dwivedi A, Washburn E, Khan N, Khaleghi M, et al. Computer derived transient ischemic dilation ratio for identifying extensive coronary artery disease using a CZT camera and imaging in the upright position. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1702–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Slomka PJ, Berman DS, Germano G. Normal limits for transient ischemic dilation with (99 m)Tc myocardial perfusion SPECT protocols. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1709–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hage FG. Regadenoson for myocardial perfusion imaging: Is it safe? J Nucl Cardiol. 2014;21:871–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hage FG, Iskandrian AE. Serious complications associated with regadenoson administration for myocardial perfusion imaging: a commentary. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014;21:877–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rai M, Ahlberg AW, Marwell J, Chaudhary W, Savino JA 3rd, Alter EL, et al. Safety of vasodilator stress myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with elevated cardiac biomarkers. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:724–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Doukky R, Golzar Y. Safety of stress testing in patients with elevated cardiac biomarkers: Are all modalities created equal? J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:735–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hussain N, Chaudhry W, Ahlberg AW, Amara RS, Elfar A, Parker MW, et al. An assessment of the safety, hemodynamic response, and diagnostic accuracy of commonly used vasodilator stressors in patients with severe aortic stenosis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1200–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Parastatidis I, Lerakis S. The use of vasodilator myocardial perfusion imaging in severe aortic stenosis: Is it time for a new prospective study? J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1214–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Andrikopoulou E, Hage FG. Adverse effects associated with regadenoson myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-1218-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Massalha S, Reizberg I, Israel O, Kapeliovich M, Sholy H, Koskosi A, et al. Conduction abnormalities during dipyridamole stress testing. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:405–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Subbiah R, Patil PV. Arrhythmias in vasodilator stress testing. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:410–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Andrikopoulou E, Morgan CJ, Brice L, Bajaj NS, Doppalapudi H, Iskandrian AE, et al. Incidence of atrioventricular block with vasodilator stress SPECT: A meta-analysis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-017-1081-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Townsend R, Desai A, Rammelsberg D, Kowalski D, Simmons N, Kitt TM. Safety and tolerability of intravenous regadenoson in healthy subjects: A randomized, repeat-dose, placebo-controlled study. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:57–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Thomas GS, Jolly AF, Safani M. When to re-dose regadenoson? J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:66–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Doran JA, Sajjad W, Schneider MD, Gupta R, Mackin ML, Schwartz RG. Aminophylline and caffeine for reversal of adverse symptoms associated with regadenoson SPECT MPI. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1062–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Jolly AF, Thomas GS. Intravenous caffeine: An alternative to aminophylline to reverse adverse effects during regadenoson myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1071–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Fughhi I, Campagnoli T, Ali A, Doukky R. Impact of a regimented aminophylline administration protocol on the burden of regadenoson-induced ischemia detected by SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1571–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Daya HA, Hage FG. Effect of aminophylline administration on the diagnostic yield of vasodilator myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1579–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Thomas GS, Cullom SJ, Kitt TM, Feaheny KM, Ananthasubramaniam K, Gropler RJ, et al. The EXERRT trial: “EXErcise to Regadenoson in Recovery Trial”: A phase 3b, open-label, parallel group, randomized, multicenter study to assess regadenoson administration following an inadequate exercise stress test as compared to regadenoson without exercise for myocardial perfusion imaging using a SPECT protocol. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:788–802.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Mahmarian JJ. Regadenoson stress during low-level exercise: The EXERRT trial-does it move the needle? J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:803–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Janvier L, Pinaquy J, Douard H, Karcher G, Bordenave L. A useful and easy to develop combined stress test for myocardial perfusion imaging: Regadenoson and isometric exercise, preliminary results. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:34–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Ceyrat Q, Mesguich C, Janvier L, Douard H, Bordenave L, Pinaquy JB. The impact of combination of regadenoson and isometric exercise on image quality of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:993–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kansal P, Holly TA. A helping hand for regadenoson tests. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:41–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kureshi F, Abdallah MS. ISCHEMIA, to revascularize or not to revascularize. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1699–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Iskandrian AE, Roth CP, Hage FG. Serial imaging and outcome prediction. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:117–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. El-Hajj S, AlJaroudi WA, Farag A, Bleich S, Manaoragada P, Iskandrian AE, et al. Effect of changes in perfusion defect size during serial regadenoson myocardial perfusion imaging on cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:101–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Iskandrian AE, Hage FG, Shaw LJ, Mahmarian JJ, Berman DS. Serial myocardial perfusion imaging: defining a significant change and targeting management decisions. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:79–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Nudi F, Di Belardino N, Versaci F, Pinto A, Procaccini E, Neri G, et al. Impact of coronary revascularization vs medical therapy on ischemia among stable patients with or suspected coronary artery disease undergoing serial myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1690–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Bittencourt MS, Blankstein R. Coronary computed tomography angiography: How should we act on what we find? J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1279–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Peix A. Functional versus anatomical approach in stable coronary artery disease patients: Perspective of low- and middle-income countries. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:518–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Uretsky S, Argulian E, Supariwala A, Agarwal SK, El-Hayek G, Chavez P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of coronary CT angiography vs stress cardiac imaging in patients following hospital admission for chest pain work-up: The Prospective First Evaluation in Chest Pain (PERFECT) Trial. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1267–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Karthikeyan G, Guzic Salobir B, Jug B, Devasenapathy N, Alexanderson E, Vitola J, et al. Functional compared to anatomical imaging in the initial evaluation of patients with suspected coronary artery disease: An international, multi-center, randomized controlled trial (IAEA-SPECT/CTA study). J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:507–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Morgan CJ. Statistical issues associated with terminating a clinical trial due to slow enrollment. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:525–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Taqueti VR, Dorbala S, Wolinsky D, Abbott B, Heller GV, Bateman TM, et al. Myocardial perfusion imaging in women for the evaluation of stable ischemic heart disease-state-of-the-evidence and clinical recommendations. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1402–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Patel MR, Calhoon JH, Dehmer GJ, Grantham JA, Maddox TM, Maron DJ, et al. ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2017 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1759–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Abu Daya H, Hage FG. Guidelines in review: ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2017 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1793–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Mahmarian JJ. Implementation of stress-only imaging: What will it take? J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:821–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Chaudhry W, Hussain N, Ahlberg AW, Croft LB, Fernandez AB, Parker MW, et al. Multicenter evaluation of stress-first myocardial perfusion image triage by nuclear technologists and automated quantification. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:809–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. van Dijk JD, Mouden M, Ottervanger JP, van Dalen JA, Knollema S, Slump CH, et al. Value of attenuation correction in stress-only myocardial perfusion imaging using CZT-SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:395–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Pazhenkottil AP, Kaufmann PA, Gaemperli O. Attenuation correction in stress-only myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:402–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Taillefer R. Myocardial perfusion imaging with 99mTc-labeled radiopharmaceuticals: How fast can a stress-rest same-day imaging protocol be completed? J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1328–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Liga R, Gimelli A. Detection of ischemia with early myocardial perfusion imaging: You see more if you watch before. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1157–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Meyer C, Weinmann P. Validation of early image acquisitions following Tc-99 m sestamibi injection using a semiconductors camera of cadmium-zinc-telluride. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1149–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Katsikis A, Theodorakos A, Kouzoumi A, Kitziri E, Georgiou E, Koutelou M. Fast myocardial perfusion imaging with (99 m)Tc in challenging patients using conventional SPECT cameras. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1314–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Slomka P, Germano G. Optimizing radiation dose and imaging time with conventional myocardial perfusion SPECT: Technical aspects. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:888–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Lecchi M, Martinelli I, Zoccarato O, Maioli C, Lucignani G, Del Sole A. Comparative analysis of full-time, half-time, and quarter-time myocardial ECG-gated SPECT quantification in normal-weight and overweight patients. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:876–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Salimian S, Thibault B, Finnerty V, Gregoire J, Harel F. Phase analysis of gated blood pool SPECT for multiple stress testing assessments of ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony in a tachycardia-induced dilated cardiomyopathy canine model. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:145–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Germano G, Van Kriekinge SD. Measuring mechanical cardiac dyssynchrony in the 3-D era. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:158–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Zafrir N, Bental T, Strasberg B, Solodky A, Mats I, Gutstein A, et al. Yield of left ventricular dyssynchrony by gated SPECT MPI in patients with heart failure prior to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator: Characteristics and prediction of cardiac outcome. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:122–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Yoshinaga K. Predicting cardiac events using ventricular dyssynchrony in patients who received implantable cardioverter defibrillators: Are more treatment options required? J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:130–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Chiang KF, Hung GU, Tsai SC, Cheng CM, Chang YC, Lin WY, et al. Impact of cardiac reverse remodeling after cardiac resynchronization therapy assessed by myocardial perfusion imaging on ventricular arrhythmia. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1282–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Malhotra S. Myocardial substrate after cardiac resynchronization therapy and the risk of ventricular arrhythmias. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1289–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Hess PL, Shaw LK, Fudim M, Iskandrian AE, Borges-Neto S. The prognostic value of mechanical left ventricular dyssynchrony defined by phase analysis from gated single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging among patients with coronary heart disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:482–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Zafrir N. Left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony in patients with coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:491–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

Dr. Fadi G. Hage reports research grant support from Astellas Pharma. Wael A. AlJaroudi has no conflicts of interest related to this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Fadi G. Hage MD, FASNC

  2. Section of Cardiology, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Fadi G. Hage MD, FASNC

  3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cardiovascular Imaging, Clemenceau Medical Center, P.O.Box 11-2555, Beirut, Lebanon

    Wael A. AlJaroudi MD, FASNC

Authors
  1. Fadi G. Hage MD, FASNC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wael A. AlJaroudi MD, FASNC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fadi G. Hage MD, FASNC.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hage, F.G., AlJaroudi, W.A. Review of cardiovascular imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology in 2017. Part 2 of 2: Myocardial perfusion imaging. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 25, 1390–1399 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-1266-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-1266-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation