Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PET/MR: Perfusion and Viability

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Hybrid Cardiac Imaging

  • 664 Accesses

Abstract

The clinical introduction of hybrid PET/MRI in 2010 was accompanied by great expectations. In the field of cardiovascular imaging, great opportunities were seen, especially in perfusion and viability imaging, through the combination of molecular imaging by PET and detailed, morphological imaging with high spatial resolution by MRI. However, some challenges also arose, which relate in particular to the attenuation correction of PET data using MRI data. In this chapter, we address these issues and the opportunities and possibilities of perfusion and viability imaging using hybrid PET/MRI.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Delso G, Furst S, Jakoby B, et al. Performance measurements of the siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1914–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nensa F, Bamberg F, Rischpler C, et al. Hybrid cardiac imaging using PET/MRI: a joint position statement by the European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology (ESCR) and the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur Radiol. 2018;28:4086–101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Zaidi H, Ojha N, Morich M, et al. Design and performance evaluation of a whole-body ingenuity TF PET-MRI system. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:3091–106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Levin CS, Maramraju SH, Khalighi MM, Deller TW, Delso G, Jansen F. Design features and mutual compatibility studies of the time-of-flight PET capable GE SIGNA PET/MR system. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016;35:1907–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Levin C, Deller T, Peterson W, Maramraju SH, Kim C, Prost R. Initial results of simultaneous whole-body ToF PET/MR. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:660.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Martinez-Moller A, Souvatzoglou M, Delso G, et al. Tissue classification as a potential approach for attenuation correction in whole-body PET/MRI: evaluation with PET/CT Data. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:520–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lau JMC, Laforest R, Sotoudeh H, et al. Evaluation of attenuation correction in cardiac PET using PET/MR. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:839–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nuyts J, Dupont P, Stroobants S, Benninck R, Mortelmans L, Suetens P. Simultaneous maximum a posteriori reconstruction of attenuation and activity distributions from emission sinograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1999;18:393–403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lindemann ME, Oehmigen M, Blumhagen JO, Gratz M, Quick HH. MR-based truncation and attenuation correction in integrated PET/MR hybrid imaging using HUGE with continuous table motion. Med Phys. 2017;44:4559–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Blumhagen JO, Braun H, Ladebeck R, et al. Field of view extension and truncation correction for MR-based human attenuation correction in simultaneous MR/PET imaging. Med Phys. 2014;41:22303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Freitag MT, Fenchel M, Bäumer P, et al. Improved clinical workflow for simultaneous whole-body PET/MRI using high-resolution CAIPIRINHA-accelerated MR-based attenuation correction. Eur J Radiol. 2017;96:12–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Huang SH, Carson RE, Phelps ME, Hoffman EJ, Schelbert HR, Kuhl DE. A Boundary method for attenuation correction in positron computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1981;5:950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Coombs BD, Szumowski J, Coshow W. Two-point Dixon technique for water-fat signal decomposition with B0 inhomogeneity correction. Magn Reson Med. 1997;38:884–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schulz V, Torres-Espallardo I, Renisch S, et al. Automatic, three-segment, MR-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MR data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:138–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Paulus DH, Quick HH, Geppert C, et al. Whole-body PET/MR imaging: quantitative evaluation of a novel model-based MR attenuation correction method including bone. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1061–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Beyer T, Lassen ML, Boellaard R, et al. Investigating the state-of-the-art in whole-body MR-based attenuation correction: an intra-individual, inter-system, inventory study on three clinical PET/MR systems. MAGMA. 2016;29:75–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Samarin A, Burger C, Wollenweber SD, et al. PET/MR imaging of bone lesions - implications for PET quantification from imperfect attenuation correction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1154–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nuyts J, Bal G, Kehren F, Fenchel M, Michel C, Watson C. Completion of a truncated attenuation image from the attenuated PET emission data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2013;32:237–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH, et al. ACC/AHA/ASNC Guidelines for the clinical use of cardiac radionuclide imaging—executive summary. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:1318–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yoshinaga K, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schwaiger M, Melin J. Cardiological applications of nuclear medicine. Lancet. 1999;354:661–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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;107:2900–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Flotats A, Bravo PE, Fukushima K, Chaudhry MA, Merrill J, Bengel FM. 82Rb PET myocardial perfusion imaging is superior to 99mTc-labelled agent SPECT in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1233–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Huisman MC, Higuchi T, Reder S, et al. Initial characterization of an 18F-labeled myocardial perfusion tracer. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:630–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Berman DS, Maddahi J, Tamarappoo BK, et al. Phase II safety and clinical comparison with single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:469–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sherif HM, Nekolla SG, Schwaiger M. Reply: simplified quantification of myocardial flow reserve with 18F-flurpiridaz: validation with microspheres in a pig model. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1835–6.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Manning WJ, Atkinson DJ, Grossman W, Paulin S, Edelman RR. First-pass nuclear magnetic resonance imaging studies using gadolinium-DTPA in patients with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;18:959–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nandalur KR, Dwamena BA, Choudhri AF, Nandalur MR, Carlos RC. Diagnostic performance of stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1343–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. de Jong MC, Genders TSS, van Geuns R-J, Moelker A, Hunink MGM. Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1881–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Parkash R, DeKemp RA, Ruddy TD, et al. Potential utility of rubidium 82 PET quantification in patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004;11:440–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kajander SA, Joutsiniemi E, Saraste M, et al. Clinical value of absolute quantification of myocardial perfusion with 15 O-water in coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:678–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schwitter J, Nanz D, Kneifel S, et al. Assessment of myocardial perfusion in coronary artery disease by magnetic resonance. Circulation. 2012;103:2230–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jerosch-Herold M. Quantification of myocardial perfusion by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2010;12:57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Morton G, Chiribiri A, Ishida M, et al. Quantification of absolute myocardial perfusion in patients with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1546–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Kunze KP, Nekolla SG, Rischpler C, et al. Myocardial perfusion quantification using simultaneously acquired 13NH3-ammonia PET and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in patients at rest and stress. Magn Reson Med. 2018;80:2641–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ghosh N, Rimoldi OE, Beanlands RSB, Camici PG. Assessment of myocardial ischaemia and viability: role of positron emission tomography. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:2984–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Di Carli MF. Predicting improved function after myocardial revascularization. Curr Opin Cardiol. 1998;13:415–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Beanlands RS, Hendry PJ, Masters RG, deKemp RA, Woodend K, Ruddy TD. Delay in revascularization is associated with increased mortality rate in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and viable myocardium on fluorine 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging. Circulation. 1998;98:II51–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Di Carli MF, Davidson M, Little R, et al. Value of metabolic imaging with positron emission tomography for evaluating prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction. Am J Cardiol. 1994;73:527–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. D’Egidio G, Nichol G, Williams KA, et al. Increasing benefit from revascularization is associated with increasing amounts of myocardial hibernation: a substudy of the PARR-2 trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:1060–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Allman KC, Shaw LJ, Hachamovitch R, Udelson JE. Myocardial viability testing and impact of revascularization on prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:1151–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Tillisch J, Brunken R, Marshall R, et al. Reversibility of cardiac wall-motion abnormalities predicted by positron tomography. N Engl J Med. 1986;314:884–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Schinkel AFL, Poldermans D, Elhendy A, Bax JJ. Assessment of myocardial viability in patients with heart failure. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1135–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Klein C, Schmal TR, Nekolla SG, Schnackenburg B, Fleck E, Nagel E. Mechanism of late gadolinium enhancement in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2007;9:653–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Klein C, Nekolla SG, Balbach T, et al. The influence of myocardial blood flow and volume of distribution on late Gd-DTPA kinetics in ischemic heart failure. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;20:588–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Klein C, Nekolla SG, Bengel FM, et al. Assessment of myocardial viability with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation. 2002;105:162–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kim RJ, Wu E, Rafael A, et al. The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to identify reversible myocardial dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1445–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kwong RY, Chan AK, Brown KA, et al. Impact of unrecognized myocardial scar detected by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging on event-free survival in patients presenting with signs or symptoms of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2006;113:2733–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hunold P, Jakob H, Erbel R, Barkhausen J, Heilmaier C. Accuracy of myocardial viability imaging by cardiac MRI and PET depending on left ventricular function. World J Cardiol. 2018;10:110–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Priamo J, Adamopoulos D, Rager O, et al. Downstream indication to revascularization following hybrid cardiac PET/MRI. Nucl Med Commun. 2017;38:515–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rischpler C, Langwieser N, Souvatzoglou M, et al. PET/MRI early after myocardial infarction: evaluation of viability with late gadolinium enhancement transmurality vs. 18F-FDG uptake. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:661–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Nensa F, Poeppel TD, Beiderwellen K, et al. Hybrid PET/MR imaging of the heart: feasibility and initial results. Radiology. 2013;268:366–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Nensa F, Poeppel T, Tezgah E, et al. Integrated FDG PET/MR imaging for the assessment of myocardial salvage in reperfused acute myocardial infarction. Radiology. 2015;276:400–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

    Lukas Kessler & Christoph Rischpler

Authors
  1. Lukas Kessler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph Rischpler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Rischpler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany

    Stephan G. Nekolla

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

    Christoph Rischpler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kessler, L., Rischpler, C. (2022). PET/MR: Perfusion and Viability. In: Nekolla, S.G., Rischpler, C. (eds) Hybrid Cardiac Imaging. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83167-7_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83167-7_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-83166-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-83167-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation