Advertisement

PET Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: 82Rb

  • Maria Luisa De RiminiEmail author
  • Giovanni Borrelli
Chapter

Abstract

Rubidium 82 (82Rb) is a positron emitter tracer, produced by the nuclear decay of Strontium-82 by electron capture via a commercially available generator. It is used for PET myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) that has been shown accurate despite the limits of quantification intrinsic to non-diffusible tracers.

The short physical half-life of 82Rb, 76 s, allows for an efficient fast protocol and let a considerable dosimetric advantage for the patient and staff, but hinders the use of stress test, allowing only pharmacologic stressor tests. List mode 82Rb PET acquisition and a mono-compartmental model approach are recommended for MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) quantification. Multimodality technique allows higher accuracy in defining ischemic vessel pertaining and calcified plaques of coronary vessels with a stronger clinical impact.

Due to the diagnostic accuracy over the traditional MPI, quantitative 82Rb PET has been widely used to facilitate diagnosis, establish the patient’s workup, and predict successfully outcome in patients with obstructive and nonobstructive CAD. If the oxygen extraction is already maximal in basic conditions, an increase in the oxygen demand can be satisfied only with an increase of MBF that is in dependence of microcirculation, endothelial function, and metabolic factors. Impairment of these systems invalidates the flow and reduces the coronary reserve, thus affecting vasodilation in particular at the subendocardium, which is earlier affected by the ischemia. A strong clinical impact of MBF quantification is achieved also in patients with multi vessels disease (MVD) or left main artery stenoses where MPI alone can underestimate the balanced ischemia, and in patients with intermediate pretest probability of CAD, where quantitative 82Rb PET allows a more accurate assessment of the ischemic burden and supports the clinical decision-making.

A growing interest regards 82Rb PET in the study of suspect acute coronary syndrome and in cardiac allograft vasculopathy after transplant (HTx). Correlations between 82Rb PET MPI, invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) confirmed that 82Rb PET MPI correlates with intravascular ultrasound and angiograms findings, so 82Rb PET MPI can be suggested to improve HTx patient’s management by reducing the frequency of invasive techniques and to establish the functional significance of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) involvement. Moreover MBF 82Rb can target viability assessment in those patients where clinical yield is likely to be highest.

The monthly cost of acquiring the 82Sr/82Rb generator was initially considered prohibitive, but it is now clear that it can be amortized by scheduling a number of at least 30 patients for each generator and it can become economically sustainable in relation to a very high number of scans.

82Rb PET-MPI submit the patients at radiation dosimetry less than the SPECT-MPI, moreover it should be emphasized that the limited dosimetry of 82Rb PET vs. the SPECT one regards both patients and the staff.

A new trend of scientific research for 82Rb is emerging in the recent years in the field of oncology. On this purpose 82Rb is a nonspecific radiotracer; therefore, the uptake by the tumor primarily depends on the tumor vascularization. Theoretically, the rationale of use of this radiotracer can be firstly identified in its capability to explore angiogenesis which, in turn, can directly correlate with the aggressiveness of the tumors.

Keywords

Rubidium 82 82Rb PET/CT MPI MBF MFR List mode CAD LVEF Obstructive CAD Nonobstructive CAD 

Supplementary material

References

  1. 1.
    Hsu B, et al. PET tracers and techniques for measuring myocardial blood flow in patients with coronary artery disease. JBR. 2013;27(6):452–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berman DS, et al. Phase II safety and clinical comparison with single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of coronary artery disease: flurpiridaz F 18 positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(4):469–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hsiao E, et al. Detection of obstructive coronary artery disease using regadenoson stress and 82Rb PET/CT myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1748–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Manabe O, et al. Review article − debate article: which PET flow tracer is the best for MBF quantification? O-15-labeled Water is the best myocardial blood flow tracer for precise MBF quantification. Ann Nucl Cardiol. 2018;4(1):000–00.  https://doi.org/10.17996/anc.18-00064
  5. 5.
    Prior JO, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb positron emission tomography: clinical validation with 15O-water. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1037–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Iaea Radioisotopes and Radiopaharmaceuticals Series no.2. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/index.html
  7. 7.
    Murthy VL, et al. Clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow using PET: joint position paper of the SNMMI cardiovascular council and the ASNC. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(2):273–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rasmussen T, et al. Stomach interference in 82Rb-PET myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018;  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-1359-8.
  9. 9.
    Jagathesan R, et al. Dobutamine-induced hyperaemia inversely correlates with coronary artery stenosis severity and highlights dissociation between myocardial blood flow and oxygen consumption. Heart. 2006;92:1230–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Rimini ML, et al. Rubidium 82 cardiac PET/CT: the first Italian experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;(Suppl 2):37.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koenders SS, et al. Impact of regadenoson-induced myocardial creep on dynamic Rubidium-82 PET myocardial blood flow quantification. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019;26(3):719–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-019-01649-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    deKemp RA, Yoshinaga K, Beanlands RSB. Will 3-dimensional PET-CT enable the routine quantification of myocardial blood flow? J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:380–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yoshida K, Mullani N, Gould KL. Coronary flow and flow reserve by PET simplified for clinical applications using rubidium-82 or nitrogen-13-ammonia. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1701–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lortie M, Beanlands RSB, Yoshinaga K, Klein R, Dasilva JN, DeKemp RA. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1765–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slomka PJ, et al. Comparison of clinical tools for measurements of regional stress and rest myocardial blood flow assessed with 13N-ammonia PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:171–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nagamachi S, Czernin J, Kim AS, et al. Reproducibility of measurements of regional resting and hyperemic myocardial blood flow assessed with PET. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1626–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Naya M, Murthy VL, Blankstein R, et al. Quantitative relationship between the extent and morphology of coronary atherosclerotic plaque and downstream myocardial perfusion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1807–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson NP, Gould KL. Integrating noninvasive absolute flow, coronary flow reserve, and ischemic thresholds into a comprehensive map of physiological severity. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:430–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, et al. Association between coronary vascular dysfunction and cardiac mortality in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2012;126:1858–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bateman TM, Heller GV, McGhie AI, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of rest/stress ECG-gated Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET: comparison with ECG-gated Tc99m sestamibi SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;(1):24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dorbala S, et al. Incremental prognostic value of gated Rb-82 positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging over clinical variables and rest LVEF. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2(7):846–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mc Ardle BA, et al. Does Rubidium-82 PET have superior accuracy to SPECT perfusion imaging for thediagnosis of obstructive coronary disease? JACC. 2012;60(18):1828–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams K, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Naya M, Murthy VL, Taqueti VR, et al. Preserved coronary flow reserve ef- fectively excludes high-risk coronary artery disease on angiography. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:248–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chang SU, et al. The coronary artery calcium score and stress myocardial perfusion imaging provide independent and complementary prediction of cardiac risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(20):1872–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zampella E, et al. Combined evaluation of regional coronary artery calcium and myocardial perfusion by 82Rb PET/CT in the identification of obstructive coronary artery disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(4):521–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Task Force Members 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:2949–3003.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Motwani M, et al. Automated quantitative nuclear cardiology methods. Cardiol Clin. 2016;34(1):47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hachamovitch R, et al. Comparison of the short-term survival benefit associated with revascularization compared with medical therapy in patients with no prior coronary artery disease undergoing stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography. Circulation. 2003;107(23):2900–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tonino PAL, et al. Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study. JACC. 2010;55(25):2816–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dorbala S, et al. Prognostic value of PET MPI: a multicenter registry. JACC. 2013;61(2):176–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rischpler C, et al. Transient ischemic dilation ratio in 82Rb PET myocardial perfusion imaging: normal values and significante as a diagnostic and prognostic marker. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:723–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Murthy VL, Lee BC, Sitek A, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Toyota E, et al. Regulation of the coronary vasomotor tone: what we know and where we need to go. J Nucl Cardiol. 2001;8(5):599–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liga R, et al. Multicentre multi-device hybrid imaging study of coronary artery disease: results from the evaluation of integrated cardiac imaging for the detection and characterization of ischaemic heart disease (EVINCI) hybrid imaging population. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17:951–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hagemann CE, et al. Quantitative myocardial blood flow with Rubidium-82 PET: a clinical perspective. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;5(5):457–68.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ziadi MC, et al. Impaired myocardial blood flow reserve on Rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging predicts adverse outcomes in patients assessed for myocardial ischemia. JACC. 2011;58(7):740–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lovinfosse P. Nuclear medicine techniques in transplantation. Clin Transl Imaging. 2017;5:45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wenning C, et al. Inhomogeneous myocardial stress perfusion in SPECT studies predicts future allograft dysfunction in heart transplant recipients. EJNMMI Res. 2015;5(1):51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wu YW, et al. PET assessment of myocardial perfusion reserve inversely correlates with intravascular ultrasound findings in angiographically normal cardiac transplant recipients. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(6):906–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    De Rimini ML, et al. Role of cardiac 82Rb PET/CT in heart transplant recipients follow-up. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(Suppl 2):1963–4.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ananthasubramaniam K, et al. Editorial. Quantitative 82Rb dynamic pet perfusion analysis with kinetic modeling for myocardial viability: can we get away with just 82Rb perfusion kinetics? J Nucl Cardiol. 2019;26(2):387–90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-019-01616-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Moody JB, et al. The utility of 82Rb PET for myocardial viability assessment: comparison with perfusion-metabolism 82Rb - 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019;26  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-019-01615-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Merhige ME, et al. Impact of myocardial perfusion imaging with PET 82Rb on downstream invasive procedure utilization, costs, and outcomes in coronary disease management. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1069–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shaw LJ, et al. The economic consequences of available diagnostic and prognostic strategies for the evaluation of stable angina patients: an observational assessment of the value of precatherization ischemia. Economics of Noninvasive Diagnosis (END) multicenter study group. JACC. 1999;33(3):661–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dorbala S, et al. Approaches to reducing radiation dose from radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:592–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kostenikov NA, et al. Original research application of 82Sr/82Rb generator in neurooncology. Brain Behavior. 2019;9:e01212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Murthy VL, et al. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma avid for 82Rb but not 18F-FDG. Clin Nucl Med. 2014;39(10):908–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jochumsen MR, et al. A Proof of concept study of quantitative tumor perfusion imaging with 82Rb OET/CT in Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(Suppl 1):1473.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jochumsen MR, et al. Quantitative tumor perfusion imaging with 82Rubidium-PET/CT in prostate cancer – analytical and clinical validation. J Nucl Med. 2019; 60(8):1059–65.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.219188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine—PET UNIT, Health Service DepartmentAO Ospedali dei ColliNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations