Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnosis and Prognosis of Coronary Artery Disease with SPECT and PET

  • Nuclear Cardiology (V Dilsizian, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Cardiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) continues to be the most reliable modality for diagnosis of hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease (CAD). The application of radionuclide MPI using single photon emission computed tomography (SEPCT) and positron emission tomography (PET) for CAD is reviewed, with emphasis on diagnosis and risk stratification.

Recent Findings

Contemporary studies have reported the diagnostic and prognostic value of novel imaging protocols, employing stress-first or stress-only approach. In addition, the superior diagnostic value of PET has been established with a role of assessment of myocardial blood flow to improve risk stratification. The utility of MPI in special populations, such as the elderly, women, and diabetic patients has also been recently evaluated. Furthermore, multicenter studies have reported a similar diagnostic and prognostic value of radionuclide MPI compared with other functional and anatomical techniques for CAD.

Summary

Radionuclide MPI with SPECT and PET are efficacious for diagnosis and prognosis of CAD. Its universal application in varied patient populations highlights its excellent clinical effectiveness.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CAD:

Coronary artery disease

MPI:

Myocardial perfusion imaging

PET:

Positron emission tomography

SPECT:

Single photon emission computed tomography

SF:

Stress-first

SO:

Stress-only

ED:

Emergency department

MBF:

Myocardial blood flow

CFR:

Coronary flow reserve

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Benjamin EJ, Virani SS, Callaway CW, Chang AR, Cheng S, Chiuve SE, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2018 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2018;137(12):e67–e492. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000558.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Durand DJ, Lewin JS, Berkowitz SA. Medical-imaging stewardship in the accountable care era. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(18):1691–3. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1507703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shaw LJ, Blankstein R, Jacobs JE, Leipsic JA, Kwong RY, Taqueti VR, et al. Defining quality in cardiovascular imaging: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(12).

  4. Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH, Bateman TM, Messer JV, Berman DS, et al. ACC/AHA/ASNC guidelines for the clinical use of cardiac radionuclide imaging--executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASNC Committee to revise the 1995 guidelines for the clinical use of cardiac radionuclide imaging). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(7):1318–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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(8):1230–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mc Ardle BA, Dowsley TF, deKemp RA, Wells GA, Beanlands RS. Does rubidium-82 PET have superior accuracy to SPECT perfusion imaging for the diagnosis of obstructive coronary disease?: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(18):1828–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Parker MW, Iskandar A, Limone B, Perugini A, Kim H, Jones C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of cardiac positron emission tomography versus single photon emission computed tomography for coronary artery disease: a bivariate meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(6):700–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 ECG-gated Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13(1):24–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bateman TM. Advantages and disadvantages of PET and SPECT in a busy clinical practice. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19(Suppl 1):S3–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Beller GA. Underestimation of coronary artery disease with SPECT perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15(2):151–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Berman DS, Kang X, Slomka PJ, Gerlach J, de Yang L, Hayes SW, et al. Underestimation of extent of ischemia by gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with left main coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14(4):521–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nakanishi R, Gransar H, Slomka P, Arsanjani R, Shalev A, Otaki Y, et al. Predictors of high-risk coronary artery disease in subjects with normal SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23(3):530–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. • Dorbala S, Vangala D, Sampson U, Limaye A, Kwong R, Di Carli MF. Value of vasodilator left ventricular ejection fraction reserve in evaluating the magnitude of myocardium at risk and the extent of angiographic coronary artery disease: a 82Rb PET/CT study. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(3):349–58. In this study, the association of a negative LVEF reserve with extensive/severe epicardial coronary disease was shown for the first time.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ferro A, Petretta M, Acampa W, Fiumara G, Daniele S, Petretta MP, et al. Post-stress left ventricular ejection fraction drop in patients with diabetes: a gated myocardial perfusion imaging study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2013;13:99.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. • Gomez J, Golzar Y, Fughhi I, Olusanya A, Doukky R. The significance of post-stress decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction in patients undergoing regadenoson stress gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018;25(4):1313–23. This observational study did not show a diagnositc value of the decline in ejection fraction following vasodilator SPECT, for severe coronary artery disease.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. • Naya M, Murthy VL, Taqueti VR, Foster CR, Klein J, Garber M, et al. Preserved coronary flow reserve effectively excludes high-risk coronary artery disease on angiography. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(2):248–55. Provides evidence for the utility of assessment of myocardial blood flow for high risk coroanry artery disease.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 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(4):670–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chang SM, Nabi F, Xu J, Raza U, Mahmarian JJ. Normal stress-only versus standard stress/rest myocardial perfusion imaging: similar patient mortality with reduced radiation exposure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(3):221–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Duvall WL, Wijetunga MN, Klein TM, Razzouk L, Godbold J, Croft LB, et al. The prognosis of a normal stress-only Tc-99m myocardial perfusion imaging study. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17(3):370–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Heller GV, Stowers SA, Hendel RC, Herman SD, Daher E, Ahlberg AW, et al. Clinical value of acute rest technetium-99m tetrofosmin tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with acute chest pain and nondiagnostic electrocardiograms. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31(5):1011–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kontos MC, Jesse RL, Anderson FP, Schmidt KL, Ornato JP, Tatum JL. Comparison of myocardial perfusion imaging and cardiac troponin I in patients admitted to the emergency department with chest pain. Circulation. 1999;99(16):2073–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Udelson JE, Beshansky JR, Ballin DS, Feldman JA, Griffith JL, Handler J, et al. Myocardial perfusion imaging for evaluation and triage of patients with suspected acute cardiac ischemia: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288(21):2693–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Depuey EG, Mahmarian JJ, Miller TD, Einstein AJ, Hansen CL, Holly TA, et al. Patient-centered imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19(2):185–215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shaw LJ, Iskandrian AE. Prognostic value of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004;11(2):171–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. • Dorbala S, Di Carli MF, Beanlands RS, Merhige ME, Williams BA, Veledar E, et al. Prognostic value of stress myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography: results from a multicenter observational registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(2):176–84. Large multicenter observational study showing that ischemia and scar on PET MPI provides incremental prognostic value for cardiac and all-cause mortality.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Navare SM, Mather JF, Shaw LJ, Fowler MS, Heller GV. Comparison of risk stratification with pharmacologic and exercise stress myocardial perfusion imaging: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004;11(5):551–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Taqueti VR, Di Carli MF. Clinical significance of noninvasive coronary flow reserve assessment in patients with ischemic heart disease. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2016;31(6):662–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. • Murthy VL, Bateman TM, Beanlands RS, Berman DS, Borges-Neto S, Chareonthaitawee P, 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. This document provides clinicians with an overview of technical aspect and clinical applications of myocardial blood flow.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nesterov SV, Deshayes E, Sciagra R, Settimo L, Declerck JM, Pan XB, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow in absolute terms using (82)Rb PET imaging: the RUBY-10 study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(11):1119–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. • Gupta A, Taqueti VR, van de Hoef TP, Bajaj NS, Bravo PE, Murthy VL, et al. Integrated noninvasive physiological assessment of coronary circulatory function and impact on cardiovascular mortality in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2017;136(24):2325–36. Study showing a stronger predictive value of coronary flow reserve, as opossed to maximal myocardial blood flow, for predicting cardiovascualr death.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 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(12):1952–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Al Badarin F, Aljizeeri A, Almasoudi F, Al-Mallah MH. Assessment of myocardial blood flow and coronary flow reserve with positron emission tomography in ischemic heart disease: current state and future directions. Heart Fail Rev. 2017;22(4):441–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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(2):150–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fukushima K, Javadi MS, Higuchi T, Lautamaki R, Merrill J, Nekolla SG, et al. Prediction of short-term cardiovascular events using quantification of global myocardial flow reserve in patients referred for clinical 82Rb PET perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(5):726–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Farhad H, Dunet V, Bachelard K, Allenbach G, Kaufmann PA, Prior JO. Added prognostic value of myocardial blood flow quantitation in rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;14(12):1203–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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(20):2215–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 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(7):740–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. • Taqueti VR, Everett BM, Murthy VL, Gaber M, Foster CR, Hainer J, et al. Interaction of impaired coronary flow reserve and cardiomyocyte injury on adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients without overt coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2015;131(6):528–35. Coronary flow reserve predicted cardiovascular death and heart failure admission, independent of angiographic coronary artery disease.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. • 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(1):19–27. Provides evidence of the link between imparied coronary flow reserve in predictking the risk from coroanry artery disease among women.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Taqueti VR, Shaw LJ, Cook NR, Murthy VL, Shah NR, Foster CR, et al. Excess cardiovascular risk in women relative to men referred for coronary angiography is associated with severely impaired coronary flow reserve, not obstructive disease. Circulation. 2017;135(6):566–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Gaber M, Hainer J, Klein J, et al. Association between coronary vascular dysfunction and cardiac mortality in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2012;126(15):1858–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Hainer J, Gaber M, Dorbala S, et al. Coronary vascular dysfunction and prognosis in patients with chronic kidney disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(10):1025–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Shah NR, Charytan DM, Murthy VL, Skali Lami H, Veeranna V, Cheezum MK, et al. Prognostic value of coronary flow reserve in patients with dialysis-dependent ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;27(6):1823–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Berman DS. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Malhotra S, Sharma R, Kliner DE, Follansbee WP, Soman P. Relationship between silent myocardial ischemia and coronary artery disease risk factors. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20(5):731–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bamberg F, Mayrhofer T, Ferencik M, Bittner DO, Hallett TR, Janjua S, et al. Age- and sex-based resource utilisation and costs in patients with acute chest pain undergoing cardiac CT angiography: pooled evidence from ROMICAT II and ACRIN-PA trials. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(2):851–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hachamovitch R, Hayes S, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Shaw LJ, Germano G, et al. 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. 2003;41(8):1329–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Erthal F, Hossain A, Dorbala S, Shaw LJ, Di Carli MF, Merhige ME, et al. Is there an age when myocardial perfusion imaging may no longer be prognostically useful? Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11(7):e007322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1979;300(24):1350–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Doukky R, Hayes K, Frogge N. Appropriate use criteria for SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: are they appropriate for women? J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23(4):695–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sanders GD, Patel MR, Chatterjee R, Ross AK, Bastian LA, Coeytaux RR, et al. Noninvasive technologies for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in women: future research needs: identification of future research needs from comparative effectiveness review No 58. AHRQ Future Research Needs Papers. Rockville (MD). 2013.

  52. Kwok Y, Kim C, Grady D, Segal M, Redberg R. Meta-analysis of exercise testing to detect coronary artery disease in women. Am J Cardiol. 1999;83(5):660–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Metz LD, Beattie M, Hom R, Redberg RF, Grady D, Fleischmann KE. The prognostic value of normal exercise myocardial perfusion imaging and exercise echocardiography: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49(2):227–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sharir T, Kang X, Germano G, Bax JJ, Shaw LJ, Gransar H, et al. Prognostic value of poststress left ventricular volume and ejection fraction by gated myocardial perfusion SPECT in women and men: gender-related differences in normal limits and outcomes. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13(4):495–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wackers FJ, Young LH, Inzucchi SE, Chyun DA, Davey JA, Barrett EJ, et al. Detection of silent myocardial ischemia in asymptomatic diabetic subjects: the DIAD study. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(8):1954–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Zhang L, Li H, Zhang S, Jaacks LM, Li Y, Ji L. Silent myocardial ischemia detected by single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and risk of cardiac events among asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Diabetes Complicat. 2014;28(3):413–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Wolk MJ, Bailey SR, Doherty JU, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Kramer CM, et al. ACCF/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2013 multimodality appropriate use criteria for the detection and risk assessment of stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation appropriate use criteria task force, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(4):380–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Merhige ME, Breen WJ, Shelton V, Houston T, D'Arcy BJ, Perna AF. Impact of myocardial perfusion imaging with PET and (82)Rb on downstream invasive procedure utilization, costs, and outcomes in coronary disease management. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(7):1069–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Knight S, Min DB, Le VT, Meredith KG, Dhar R, Biswas S, et al. Implementation of a cardiac PET stress program: comparison of outcomes to the preceding SPECT era. JCI Insight. 2018;3(9).

  60. Hachamovitch R, Nutter B, Hlatky MA, Shaw LJ, Ridner ML, Dorbala S, et al. Patient management after noninvasive cardiac imaging results from SPARC (study of myocardial perfusion and coronary anatomy imaging roles in coronary artery disease). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(5):462–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Lee TH, Boucher CA. Clinical practice. Noninvasive tests in patients with stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(24):1840–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Malhotra S, Sharma R, Khanna M, Soman P. SPECT imaging provides long-term prognostic value over exercise electocardiography alone in patients with a normal baseline electrocardiogram. J Am Coll Crdiol. 2015;65(10S):A1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Younger JF, Brown JM, Nixon J, Everett CC, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9814):453–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Jaarsma C, Leiner T, Bekkers SC, Crijns HJ, Wildberger JE, Nagel E, et al. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive myocardial perfusion imaging using single-photon emission computed tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance, and positron emission tomography imaging for the detection of obstructive coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(19):1719–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Kiat H, Cohen I, Cabico JA, Friedman J, et al. Exercise myocardial perfusion SPECT in patients without known coronary artery disease: incremental prognostic value and use in risk stratification. Circulation. 1996;93(5):905–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Marwick TH, Case C, Vasey C, Allen S, Short L, Thomas JD. Prediction of mortality by exercise echocardiography: a strategy for combination with the duke treadmill score. Circulation. 2001;103(21):2566–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Driessen RS, Leipsic J, Raju R, Naoum C, et al. Comparison of coronary CT angiography, SPECT, PET, and hybrid imaging for diagnosis of ischemic heart disease determined by fractional flow reserve. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2(10):1100–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. • Sand NPR, Veien KT, Nielsen SS, Norgaard BL, Larsen P, Johansen A, et al. Prospective comparison of FFR derived from coronary CT angiography with SPECT perfusion imaging in stable coronary artery disease: the ReASSESS study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11(11):1640–50. Comparable accuracy of CT derived FFR versus SPECT MPI for diagnosing coronary artery disease.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. • Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, Mark DB, Al-Khalidi HR, Cavanaugh B, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1291–300. PROMISE trial comparing cardiac computed angiography first approach to function testing for diagnosis of coronary artery disease.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Dr. Al Badarin is financially supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number T32HL110837. Dr. Malhotra is financially supported by the Becker Fund for Heart Research, Community Foundation of Greater Buffalo.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiovascular Research, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas, MO, USA

    Firas J. Al Badarin

  2. Department of Cardiology, Cook County Health, Stroger Hospital of Cook County, 1901 W Harrison Street, Suite 3620, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Saurabh Malhotra

  3. Department of Cardiology, Rush Medical College, Chicago, IL, USA

    Saurabh Malhotra

Authors
  1. Firas J. Al Badarin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saurabh Malhotra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saurabh Malhotra.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Firas J. Al Badarin and Saurabh Malhotra declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Nuclear Cardiology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al Badarin, F.J., Malhotra, S. Diagnosis and Prognosis of Coronary Artery Disease with SPECT and PET. Curr Cardiol Rep 21, 57 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-019-1146-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-019-1146-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation