Advertisement

Nuclear Cardiology

  • Xu Cheng
Chapter

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major problem for health of human being. A report [1] from the American Heart Association (AHA) showed the 2009 overall rate of death attributable to CVD was 236.1 per 100,000. In 2009, coronary heart disease (CAD) alone caused about 1 of every 6 deaths in the United States; 386,324 Americans died of CAD. Each year, an estimated of about 635,000 Americans have a new coronary attack, and about 280,000 have a recurrent attack. CVD causes the huge medical expenses and brings the heavy burden to the society. The total direct and indirect cost of CVD and stroke in the United States for 2009 is estimated to be $312.6 billion. CVD costs more than any other diagnostic group [1]. In China, the mortality of CVD is increasing significantly during past three decades, especially for CAD [2]. From 1984 to 1999, the age-adjusted mortality attributable to CAD increased by 41% in 35–74-years-old male population and increased by 39% in female. In 2000, the mortality attributable to CAD was 71.3 per 100,000 for the urban population and 31.6 per 100,000 for the rural population. In 2009, the mortality attributable to CAD increased to 94.96 per 100,000 for the urban population and 71.27 per 100,000 for the urban population [2]. Nuclear cardiology is a mature and widely used diagnostic imaging method and involves a variety of imaging approaches, such as myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), myocardial metabolic imaging, radionuclide cardiac blood pool imaging, cardiac receptor, etc. Nuclear cardiology plays an important role for CAD and other CVD diagnosis, differential diagnosis, evaluation of treatment response, and assessment of outcome [3].

References

  1. 1.
    Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL et al (2013) Heart disease and stroke statistics—2013 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 127:e6–e245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen HZ (2016) Practice of cardiology. Shanghai Scientific & Technical Publishers, ShanghaiGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Lorenzo A (2009) The evolving roles of nuclear cardiology. Curr Cardiol Rev 5:52–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chinese Society of Cardiology, Chinese Medical Association; Editorial Board, Chinese Journal of Cardiology (2007) Guideline for diagnosis and treatment of patients with chronic stable angina. Zhonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi 35:195–206Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maublant JC, Gachon P, Moins N (1988) Hexakis (2-methoxy isobutylisonitrile) technetium-99m and thallium-201 chloride: uptake and release in cultured myocardial cells. J Nucl Med 29:48–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson LL (1994) Myocardial perfusion imaging with technetium-99m-teboroxime. J Nucl Med 35:689–692PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown KA (1994) The role of stress redistribution thallium-201 myocardial perfusion imaging in evaluating coronary artery disease and perioperative risk. J Nucl Med 35:703–706PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moralidis E, Spyridonidis T, Arsos G et al (2007) Identification of advanced coronary artery disease with exercise myocardial perfusion imaging: the clinical value of a novel approach for assessing lung thallium-201 uptake. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:573–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedman J, Van Train K, Maddahi J (1989) Upward creep of the heart: a frequent source of false-positive reversible defects during thallium-201 stress-redistribution SPECT. J Nucl Med 30:1718–1722PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wackers FJT (2003) Nuclear cardiology: the basics—how to set up and maintain a laboratory, 2nd edn. Humana Press, TotowaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Germano G, Berman DS (2006) Clinical gated cardiac SPECT, 2nd edn. Blackwell Futura Publishing, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cerqueira MD, Allman KC, Ficaro EP et al (2010) Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 17:709–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang G, Shi HC (2011) Nuclear cardiology. Shanghai Scientific & Technical Publishers, ShanghaiGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen YD, Fang WY, Chen JY (2018) Chinese expert consensus on the non-invasive imaging examination pathways of stable coronary artery disease. J Geriatr Cardiol 15:30–40PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Underwood SR, Anagnostopoulos C, Cerqueira M et al (2004) Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: the evidence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:261–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taillefer R, DePuey EG, Udelson JE et al (1997) Comparative diagnostic accuracy of Tl-201 and Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT imaging (perfusion and ECG-gated SPECT) in detecting coronary artery disease in women. J Am Coll Cardiol 29:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smanio PE, Watson DD, Segalla DL et al (1997) Value of gating of technetium-99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomographic imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 30:1687–1692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hachamovitch R, Hayes S, Friedman JD et al (2003) Determinants of risk and its temporal variation in patients with normal stress myocardial perfusion scans: what is the warranty period of a normal scan? J Am Coll Cardiol 41:1329–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abidov A, Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW et al (2003) Prognostic impact of hemodynamic response to adenosine in patients older than age 55 years undergoing vasodilator stress myocardial perfusion study. Circulation 107:2894–2899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yao Z, Zhu H, Li W et al (2017) Adenosine triphosphate stress myocardial perfusion imaging for risk stratification of patients aged 70 years and older with suspected coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol 24:429–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD et al (2003) 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 107:2900–2907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iannaccone M, Gili S, De Filippo O et al (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of functional, imaging and biochemical tests for patients presenting with chest pain to the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2048872617754275.
  23. 23.
    Sechtem U, Achenbach S, Friedrich M et al (2012) Non-invasive imaging in acute chest pain syndromes. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 13:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Udelson JE, Spiegler EJ (2001) Emergency department perfusion imaging for suspected coronary artery disease: the ERASE chest pain trial. Md Med (Suppl):90–94Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fernandez-Friera L, Garcia-Alvarez A, Bagheriannejad-Esfahani F et al (2011) Diagnostic value of coronary artery calcium scoring in low-intermediate risk patients evaluated in the emergency department for acute coronary syndrome. Am J Cardiol 107:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Douglas PS, Garcia MJ, Haines DE et al (2011) ACCF/ASE/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR 2011 appropriate use criteria for echocardiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Endorsed by the American College of Chest Physicians. J Am Coll Cardiol 57:1126–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hachamovitch R, Rozanski A, Shaw LJ et al (2011) Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur Heart J 32:1012–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cremer P, Hachamovitch R, Tamarappoo B et al (2014) Clinical decision making with myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Semin Nucl Med 44:320–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ruygrok PN, Webster MW, de Valk V et al (2001) Clinical and angiographic factors associated with asymptomatic restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 104:2289–2294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Garzon PP, Eisenberg MJ et al (2001) Functional testing for the detection of restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: a meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol 17:41–48Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dori G, Denekamp Y, Fishman S et al (2003) Exercise stress testing, myocardial perfusion imaging and stress echocardiography for detecting restenosis after successful percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: a review of performance. J Intern Med 253:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Georgoulias P, Demakopoulos N, Kontos A et al (1998) Tc-99m tetrofosmin myocardial perfusion imaging before and six months after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Clin Nucl Med 23:678–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Caner B, Oto A, Ovunc K et al (1998) Prediction of restenosis after successful percutaneous coronary angioplasty by dobutamine thallium-201 scintigraphy. Int J Cardiol 66:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Milavetz JJ, Miller TD, Hodge DO et al (1998) Accuracy of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with stents in native coronary arteries. Am J Cardiol 82:857–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Georgoulias P, Valotassiou V, Tsougos I et al (2010) Myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention. Curr Cardiol Rev 6:98–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shaw LJ, Cerqueira MD, Brooks MM et al (2012) Impact of left ventricular function and the extent of ischemia and scar by stress myocardial perfusion imaging on prognosis and therapeutic risk reduction in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease: results from the bypass angioplasty revascularization investigation 2 diabetes (BARI 2D) trial. J Nucl Cardiol 19:658–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Park S, Cheon GJ, Paeng JC et al (2016) Phase analysis of gated myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: reflection of late reverse remodeling in patients with patent grafts after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Nucl Med Commun 37:1139–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Miller DD et al (2002) Coronary flow studies for risk stratification in multivessel disease. A physiologic bridge too far? J Am Coll Cardiol 39:859–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mitani I, Jain D, Joska TM et al (2003) Doxorubicin cardiotoxicity: prevention of congestive heart failure with serial cardiac function monitoring with equilibrium radionuclide angiocardiography in the current era. J Nucl Cardiol 10:132–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marwick TH, MacIntyre WJ, Lafont A et al (1992) Metabolic responses of hibernating and infarcted myocardium to revascularization. A follow-up study of regional perfusion, function, and metabolism. Circulation 85:1347–1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schinkel AF, Bax JJ, Poldermans D et al (2007) Hibernating myocardium: diagnosis and patient outcomes. Curr Probl Cardiol 32:375–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Slart RH, Bax JJ, van Veldhuisen DJ et al (2006) Prediction of functional recovery after revascularization in patients with chronic ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction: head-to-head comparison between 99mTc-sestamibi/18F-FDG DISA SPECT and 13N-ammonia/18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33:716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Marwick TH, Zuchowski C, Lauer MS et al (1999) Functional status and quality of life in patients with heart failure undergoing coronary bypass surgery after assessment of myocardial viability. J Am Coll Cardiol 33:750–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Greenwood JP, Motwani M, Maredia N et al (2014) Comparison of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography in women with suspected coronary artery disease from the clinical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging in coronary heart disease (CE-MARC) trial. Circulation 129:1129–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kato S, Kitagawa K, Ishida N et al (2010) Assessment of coronary artery disease using magnetic resonance coronary angiography: a national multicenter trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:983–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yoon YE, Kitagawa K, Kato S et al (2012) Prognostic value of coronary magnetic resonance angiography for prediction of cardiac events in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 60:2316–2322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gargiulo P, Dellegrottaglie S, Bruzzese D et al (2013) The prognostic value of normal stress cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 6:574–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nagel E, Schuster A et al (2012) Myocardial viability: dead or alive is not the question! JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 5:509–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kim RJ, Wu E, Rafael A et al (2000) The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to identify reversible myocardial dysfunction. N Engl J Med 343:1445–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rahbar K, Seifarth H, Schäfers M et al (2012) Differentiation of malignant and benign cardiac tumors using 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 53:856–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. and Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xu Cheng
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineThe First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical UniversityNanjingP. R. China

Personalised recommendations