Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical use of quantitative cardiac perfusion PET: rationale, modalities and possible indications. Position paper of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Until recently, PET was regarded as a luxurious way of performing myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, with excellent image quality and diagnostic capabilities that hardly justified the additional cost and procedural effort. Quantitative perfusion PET was considered a major improvement over standard qualitative imaging, because it allows the measurement of parameters not otherwise available, but for many years its use was confined to academic and research settings. In recent years, however, several factors have contributed to the renewal of interest in quantitative perfusion PET, which has become a much more readily accessible technique due to progress in hardware and the availability of dedicated and user-friendly platforms and programs. In spite of this evolution and of the growing evidence that quantitative perfusion PET can play a role in the clinical setting, there are not yet clear indications for its clinical use. Therefore, the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine, starting from the experience of its members, decided to examine the current literature on quantitative perfusion PET to (1) evaluate the rationale for its clinical use, (2) identify the main methodological requirements, (3) identify the remaining technical difficulties, (4) define the most reliable interpretation criteria, and finally (5) tentatively delineate currently acceptable and possibly appropriate clinical indications. The present position paper must be considered as a starting point aiming to promote a wider use of quantitative perfusion PET and to encourage the conception and execution of the studies needed to definitely establish its role in clinical practice.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tillisch J, Brunken R, Marshall R, Schwaiger M, Mandelkern M, Phelps M, 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 

  2. Stewart RE, Schwaiger M, Molina E, Popma J, Gacioch GM, Kalus M, et al. Comparison of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography and thallium-201 SPECT imaging for detection of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1991;67:1303–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Beanlands R, Heller GV. Proceedings of the ASNC Cardiac PET Summit, 12 May 2014, Baltimore, MD: 1: the value of PET: integrating cardiovascular PET into the care continuum. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:557–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bateman TM, Lance Gould K, Di Carli MF. Proceedings of the Cardiac PET Summit, 12 May 2014, Baltimore, MD: 3: quantification of myocardial blood flow. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:571–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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). Circulation. 2003;108:1404–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cremer P, Hachamovitch R, Tamarappoo B. Clinical decision making with myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Semin Nucl Med. 2014;44:320–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Di Carli M, Czernin J, Hoh CK, Gerbaudo VH, Brunken RC, Huang SC, et al. Relation among stenosis severity, myocardial blood flow, and flow reserve in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1995;91:1944–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gould KL. Does coronary flow trump coronary anatomy? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:1009–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Parkash R, deKemp RA, Ruddy TD, Kitsikis A, Hart R, Beauchesne L, 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 

  12. Hajjiri MM, Leavitt MB, Zheng H, Spooner AE, Fischman AJ, Gewirtz H. Comparison of positron emission tomography measurement of adenosine-stimulated absolute myocardial blood flow versus relative myocardial tracer content for physiological assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity and location. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:751–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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;53:1230–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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;19:670–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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;55:248–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson NP, Gould KL. Physiological basis for angina and ST-segment change PET-verified thresholds of quantitative stress myocardial perfusion and coronary flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:990–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gould KL, Johnson NP, Bateman TM, Beanlands RS, Bengel FM, Bober R, et al. Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease. Role of coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and positron emission tomography imaging in revascularization decision-making. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1639–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schindler TH, Quercioli A, Valenta I, Ambrosio G, Wahl RL, Dilsizian V. Quantitative assessment of myocardial blood flow – clinical and research applications. Semin Nucl Med. 2014;44:274–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Slart RH, Zeebregts CJ, Hillege HL, de Sutter J, Dierckx RA, van Veldhuisen DJ, et al. Myocardial perfusion reserve after a PET-driven revascularization procedure: a strong prognostic factor. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:873–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dorbala S, Di Carli MF. Cardiac PET perfusion: prognosis, risk stratification, and clinical management. Semin Nucl Med. 2014;44:344–57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Murthy VL, Di Carli MF. Non-invasive quantification of coronary vascular dysfunction for diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:1060–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pearson TA. New tools for coronary risk assessment: what are their advantages and limitations? Circulation. 2002;105:886–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. MacIntyre WJ, Go RT, King JL, Cook SA, Neumann DR, Saha GB, et al. Clinical outcome of cardiac patients with negative thallium-201 SPECT and positive rubidium-82 PET myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:400–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yoshinaga K, Chow BJ, Williams K, Chen L, deKemp RA, Garrard L, 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 

  25. Dorbala S, Hachamovitch R, Curillova Z, Thomas D, Vangala D, Kwong RY, 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;2:846–854.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Schindler TH, Nitzsche EU, Schelbert HR, Olschewski M, Sayre J, Mix M, et al. Positron emission tomography-measured abnormal responses of myocardial blood flow to sympathetic stimulation are associated with the risk of developing cardiovascular events. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1505–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tio RA, Dabeshlim A, Siebelink HM, de Sutter J, Hillege HL, Zeebregts CJ, et al. Comparison between the prognostic value of left ventricular function and myocardial perfusion reserve in patients with ischemic heart disease. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:214–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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;54:150–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fukushima K, Javadi MS, Higuchi T, Lautamäki 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;52:726–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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;58:740–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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;124:2215–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 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;126:1858–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 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;5:1025–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mc Ardle BA, Davies RA, Chen L, Small GR, Ruddy TD, Dwivedi G, et al. Prognostic value of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography in patients after heart transplant. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:930–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Juárez-Orozco LE, Glauche J, Alexanderson E, Zeebregts CJ, Boersma HH, Glaudemans AW, et al. Myocardial perfusion reserve in spared myocardium: correlation with infarct size and left ventricular ejection fraction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1148–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 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;131:528–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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;131:19–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Camici P, Chiriatti G, Lorenzoni R, Bellina RC, Gistri R, Italiani G, et al. Coronary vasodilation is impaired in both hypertrophied and nonhypertrophied myocardium of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a study with nitrogen-13 ammonia and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;17:879–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Cecchi F, Sgalambro A, Baldi M, Sotgia B, Antoniucci D, Camici PG, et al. Microvascular dysfunction, myocardial ischemia, and progression to heart failure in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2009;2:452–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Cecchi F, Olivotto I, Gistri R, Lorenzoni R, Chiriatti G, Camici PG. Coronary microvascular dysfunction and prognosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1027–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Olivotto I, Cecchi F, Gistri R, Lorenzoni R, Chiriatti G, Girolami F, et al. Relevance of coronary microvascular flow impairment to long-term remodeling and systolic dysfunction in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1043–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Neglia D, Michelassi C, Trivieri MG, Sambuceti G, Giorgetti A, Pratali L, et al. Prognostic role of myocardial blood flow impairment in idiopathic left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation. 2002;105:186–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Majmudar MD, Murthy VL, Shah RV, Kolli S, Mousavi N, Foster CR, et al. Quantification of coronary flow reserve in patients with ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy and its association with clinical outcomes. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:900–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tomberli B, Cecchi F, Sciagrà R, Berti V, Lisi F, Torricelli F, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction is an early feature of cardiac involvement in patients with Anderson-Fabry disease. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15:1363–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Dorbala S, Vangala D, Bruyere Jr J, Quarta C, Kruger J, Padera R, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction is related to abnormalities in myocardial structure and function in cardiac amyloidosis. JACC Heart Fail. 2014;2:358–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Votaw JR, White M. Comparison of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional cardiac Rb-82 PET studies. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:701–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Raylman RR, Caraher JM, Hutchins GD. Sampling requirements for dynamic cardiac PET studies using image-derived input functions. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:440–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Moody JB, Lee BC, Corbett JR, Ficaro EP, Murthy VL. Precision and accuracy of clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow by dynamic PET: a technical perspective. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:935–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Chen GP, Branch KR, Alessio AM, Pham P, Tabibiazar R, Kinahan P, et al. Effect of reconstruction algorithms on myocardial blood flow measurement with 13N-ammonia PET. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1259–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Van Velden FHP, Kloet RW, van Berckel BNM, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R. Accuracy of 3-dimensional reconstruction algorithms for the high-resolution research tomograph. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:72–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Walker MD, Asselin M-C, Julyan PJ, Feldmann M, Talbot PS, Jones T, et al. Bias in iterative reconstruction of low-statistics PET data: benefits of a resolution model. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:931–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Rahmim A, Qi J, Sossi V. Resolution modeling in PET imaging: theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls. Med Phys. 2013;40:064301.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Tong S, Alessio AM, Thielemans K, Stearns C, Ross S, Kinahan PE. Properties and mitigation of edge artifacts in PSF-based PET reconstruction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2011;58:2264–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G. Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:462–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Westerwoudt V, Conti M, Eriksson L. Advantages of improved time resolution for TOF PET at very low statistics. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2014;61:126–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Presotto L, Busnardo E, Bettinardi V, Landoni C, Todeschini P, Rimoldi O, et al. Evaluation of time of flight (TOF) and point spread function (PSF) reconstructions in the quantification of myocardial blood flow with 13N ammonia and PET: Comparison among reconstructions (reprojection, OSEM), software (PMOD and CARIMAS) and operators. Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), 2012 IEEE. p. 3979–82.

  58. Armstrong IS, Tonge CM, Arumugam P. Impact of point spread function modeling and time-of-flight on myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve measurements for rubidium-82 cardiac PET. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014;21:467–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Tomiyama T, Ishihara K, Suda M, Kanaya K, Sakurai M, Takahashi N, et al. Impact of time-of-flight on qualitative and quantitative analyses of myocardial perfusion PET studies using 13N-ammonia. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:998–1007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Maddahi J, Packard RRS. Cardiac PET perfusion tracers: current status and future directions. Semin Nucl Med. 2014;44:333–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Bergmann SR, Fox KA, Rand AL, McElvany KD, Welch MJ, Markham J, et al. Quantification of regional myocardial blood flow in vivo with H215O. Circulation. 1984;70:724–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Hermansen F, Ashburner J, Spinks TJ, Kooner JS, Camici PG, Lammertsma AA. Generation of myocardial factor images directly from the dynamic oxygen-15-water scan without use of an oxygen-15-carbon monoxide blood-pool scan. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:1696–702.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kajander S, Joutsiniemi E, Saraste M, Pietila M, Ukkonen H, Saraste A, et al. Cardiac positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging accurately detects anatomically and functionally significant coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2010;122:603–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Di Carli MF, Dorbala S, Meserve J, El Fakhri G, Sitek A, Moore SC. Clinical myocardial perfusion PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:783–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Krivokapich J, Smith GT, Huang SC, Hoffman EJ, Ratib O, Phelps ME, et al. 13N ammonia myocardial imaging at rest and with exercise in normal volunteers: quantification of absolute myocardial perfusion with dynamic positron emission tomography. Circulation. 1989;80:1328–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Muzik O, Beanlands RS, Hutchins GD, Manger TJ, Nguyen N, Schwaiger M. Validation of nitrogen-13-ammonia tracer kinetic model for quantification of myocardial blood flow using PET. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:83–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. DeGrado TR, Hanson MW, Turkington TG, Delong DM, Brezinski DA, Vallée JP, et al. Estimation of myocardial blood flow for longitudinal studies with 13N-labeled ammonia and positron emission tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 1996;3:494–507.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Hutchins GD, Schwaiger M, Rosenspire KC, Krivokapich J, Schelbert H, Kuhl DE. Noninvasive quantification of regional blood flow in the human heart using N-13 ammonia and dynamic positron emission tomographic imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;15:1032–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Herrero P, Markham J, Shelton ME, Weinheimer CJ, Bergmann SR. Noninvasive quantification of regional myocardial perfusion with rubidium-82 and positron emission tomography: exploration of a mathematical model. Circulation. 1990;82:1377–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. El Fakhri G, Sitek A, Guerin B, Kijewski MF, Di Carli MF, Moore SC. Quantitative dynamic cardiac 82Rb PET using generalized factor and compartment analyses. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1264–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Klein R, Adler A, Beanlands RS, deKemp RA. Precision-controlled elution of a 82Sr/82Rb generator for cardiac perfusion imaging with positron emission tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:659–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Klein R, Beanlands RS, deKemp RA. Quantification of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve: technical aspects. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:555–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Tout D, Tonge C, Muthu S, Arumugam P. Assessment of a protocol for routine simultaneous myocardial blood flow measurement and standard myocardial perfusion imaging with rubidium-82 on a high count rate positron emission tomography system. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33:1202–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Martin CC, Christian BT, Satter MR, Nickerson LDH, Nickles RJ. Quantitative PET with positron emitters that emit prompt gamma rays. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1995;14:681–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Esteves FP, Nye JA, Khan A, Folks RD, Halkar RK, Garcia EV, et al. Prompt-gamma compensation in Rb-82 myocardial perfusion 3D PET/CT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:247–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Danad I, Uusitalo V, Kero T, Saraste A, Raijmakers PG, Lammertsma AA, et al. Quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion in the detection of significant coronary artery disease: cutoff values and diagnostic accuracy of quantitative [15O]H2O PET imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1464–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Schindler TH, Dilsizian V. PET-determined hyperemic myocardial blood flow: further progress to clinical application. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1476–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Goudarzi B, Fukushima K, Bravo P, Merrill J, Bengel FM. Comparison of the myocardial blood flow response to regadenoson and dipyridamole: a quantitative analysis in patients referred for clinical 82Rb myocardial perfusion PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1908–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Hsiao E, Ali B, Blankstein R, Skali H, Ali T, Bruyere Jr J, 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Cullom SJ, Case JA, Courter SA, McGhie AI, Bateman TM. Regadenoson pharmacologic rubidium-82 PET: a comparison of quantitative perfusion and function to dipyridamole. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:76–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Johnson NP, Gould KL. Regadenoson versus dipyridamole hyperemia for cardiac PET imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:438–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Sinusas AJ. Does a shortened hyperemia with regadenoson stress pose a concern for quantitative Rb-82 PET imaging? Optimization of regadenoson PET imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:448–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 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;48:349–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Javadi MS, Lautamaki R, Merrill J, Voicu C, Epley W, McBride G, et al. Definition of vascular territories on myocardial perfusion images by integration with true coronary anatomy: a hybrid PET/CT analysis. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:198–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Thomassen A, Petersen H, Johansen A, Braad PE, Diederichsen AC, Mickley H, et al. Quantitative myocardial perfusion by O-15-water PET: individualized vs. standardized vascular territories. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:970–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Sciagrà R, Passeri A, Cipollini F, Castagnoli H, Olivotto I, Burger C, et al. Validation of pixel-wise parametric mapping of myocardial blood flow with (13)NH3 PET in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1581–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Gould KL, Pan T, Loghin C, Johnson NP, Guha A, Sdringola S. Frequent diagnostic errors in cardiac PET/CT due to misregistration of CT attenuation and emission PET images: a definitive analysis of causes, consequences, and corrections. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1112–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Martinez-Moller A, Souvatzoglou M, Navab N, Schwaiger M, Nekolla SG. Artifacts from misaligned CT in cardiac perfusion PET/CT studies: frequency, effects, and potential solutions. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:188–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Lautamaki R, Brown TL, Merrill J, Bengel FM. CT-based attenuation correction in (82)Rb-myocardial perfusion PET-CT: incidence of misalignment and effect on regional tracer distribution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:305–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Livieratos L, Rajappan K, Stegger L, Schafers K, Bailey DL, Camici PG. Respiratory gating of cardiac PET data in list-mode acquisition. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:584–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Schleyer PJ, Thielemans K, Marsden PK. Extracting a respiratory signal from raw dynamic PET data that contain tracer kinetics. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:4345–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Garcia EV. Proceedings of the Cardiac PET Summit Meeting 12 May 2014: Cardiac PET and SPECT instrumentation. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:563–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Saraste A, Kajander S, Han C, Nesterov SV, Knuuti J. PET: is myocardial flow quantification a clinical reality? J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:1044–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Choi Y, Huang SC, Hawkins RA, Kim JY, Kim BT, Hoh CK, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow using 13N-ammonia and PET: comparison of tracer models. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1045–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Hoffman EJ, Huang SC, Plummer D, Phelps ME. Quantification in positron emission tomography: 6. Effect of nonuniform resolution. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1982;6:987–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Hove JD, Gambhir SS, Kofoed KF, Freiberg J, Kelbaek H. Quantification of the regional blood flow in the interventricular septum using positron emission tomography and nitrogen-13 ammonia. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:109–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Hutchins GD, Caraher JM, Raylman RR. A region of interest strategy for minimizing resolution distortions in quantitative myocardial PET studies. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:1243–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Sawada S, Muzik O, Beanlands RS, Wolfe E, Hutchins GD, Schwaiger M. Interobserver and interstudy variability of myocardial blood flow and flow-reserve measurements with nitrogen 13 ammonia-labeled positron emission tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 1995;2:413–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Nagamachi S, Czernin J, Kim AS, Sun KT, Böttcher M, Phelps ME, et al. Reproducibility of measurements of regional resting and hyperemic myocardial blood flow assessed with PET. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1626–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Kaufmann PA, Gnecchi-Ruscone T, Yap JT, Rimoldi O, Camici PG. Assessment of the reproducibility of baseline and hyperemic myocardial blood flow measurements with 15O-labeled water and PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1848–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Jagathesan R, Kaufmann PA, Rosen SD, Rimoldi OE, Turkeimer F, Foale R, et al. Assessment of the long-term reproducibility of baseline and dobutamine-induced myocardial blood flow in patients with stable coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:212–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Knešaurek K, Machac J, Zhang Z. Repeatability of regional myocardial blood flow calculation in 82Rb PET imaging. BMC Med Phys. 2009;9:2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Nesterov SV, Han C, Mäki M, Kajander S, Naum AG, Helenius H, et al. Myocardial perfusion quantification with 15O-labeled water PET: high reproducibility of the new cardiac analysis software (CarimasTM). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1594–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. El Fakhri G, Kardan A, Sitek A, Dorbala S, Abi-Hatem N, Lahoud Y, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of quantitative myocardial blood flow assessment with 82Rb PET: comparison with 13N-ammonia PET. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1062–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Manabe O, Yoshinaga K, Katoh C, Naya M, deKemp RA, Tamaki N. Repeatability of rest and hyperemic myocardial blood flow measurements with 82Rb dynamic PET. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:68–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Klein R, Renaud JM, Ziadi MC, Thorn SL, Adler A, Beanlands RS, et al. Intra- and inter-operator repeatability of myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve measurements using rubidium-82 PET and a highly automated analysis program. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:600–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Efseaff M, Klein R, Ziadi MC, Beanlands RS, deKemp RA. Short-term repeatability of resting myocardial blood flow measurements using rubidium-82 PET imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:997–1006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Choi Y, Huang SC, Hawkins RA, Kim JY, Kim BT, Hoh CK, et al. A simplified method for quantification of myocardial blood flow using nitrogen-13-ammonia and dynamic PET. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:488–97.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Coxson PG, Huesman RH, Borland L. Consequences of using a simplified kinetic model for dynamic PET data. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:660–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Slomka PJ, Alexanderson E, Jácome R, Jiménez M, Romero E, Meave A, 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. deKemp RA, Declerck J, Klein R, Pan X-B, Nakazato R, Tonge C, et al. Multisoftware reproducibility study of stress and rest myocardial blood flow assessed with 3D dynamic PET/CT and a 1-tissue-compartment model of 82Rb kinetics. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:571–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Tahari AK, Lee A, Rajaram M, Fukushima K, Lodge MA, Lee BC, et al. Absolute myocardial flow quantification with 82Rb PET/CT: comparison of different software packages and methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:126–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Nesterov SV, Deshayes E, Sciagrà R, Settimo L, Declerck JM, Pan X-B, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow in absolute terms using 82Rb PET imaging: results of RUBY-10 study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:1119–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Harms HJ, Nesterov SV, Han C, Danad I, Leonora R, Raijmakers PG, et al. Comparison of clinical non-commercial tools for automated quantification of myocardial blood flow using oxygen-15-labelled water PET/CT. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;15:431–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Sunderland JJ, Pan X-B, Declerck J, Menda Y. Dependency of cardiac rubidium-82 imaging quantitative measures on age, gender, vascular territory, and software in a cardiovascular normal population. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:72–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Dunet V, Klein R, Allenbach G, Renaud J, deKemp RA, Prior JO. Myocardial blood flow quantification by Rb-82 cardiac PET/CT: a detailed reproducibility study between two semi-automatic analysis programs. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015. doi:10.1007/s12350-015-0151-2

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Bateman TM, Case JA. Variability in normal myocardial blood flow measurements: physiologic, methodologic, or protocol related? J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:85–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Sampson UK, Dorbala S, Limaye A, Kwong R, Di Carli MF. Diagnostic accuracy of rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion imaging with hybrid positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:1052–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Santana CA, Folks RD, Garcia EV, Verdes L, Sanyal R, Hainer J, et al. Quantitative 82Rb PET/CT: development and validation of myocardial perfusion database. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1122–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Czernin J, Müller P, Chan S, Brunken RC, Porenta G, Krivokapich J, et al. Influence of age and hemodynamics on myocardial blood flow and flow reserve. Circulation. 1993;88:62–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Appelman YE, Harms HJ, de Haan S, van den Oever ML, et al. Hybrid imaging using quantitative H215O PET and CT-based coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:55–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Vermeltfoort IA, Raijmakers PG, Lubberink M, Germans T, van Rossum AC, Lammertsma AA, et al. Feasibility of subendocardial and subepicardial myocardial perfusion measurements in healthy normals with (15)O-labeled water and positron emission tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2011;18:650–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Harms HJ, Heymans MW, van Royen N, Lubberink M, et al. Impact of anatomical and functional severity of coronary atherosclerotic plaques on the transmural perfusion gradient: a [15O]H2O PET study. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2094–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Knaapen P, Germans T, Camici PG, Rimoldi OE, ten Cate FJ, ten Berg JM, et al. Determinants of coronary microvascular dysfunction in symptomatic hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2008;294:H986–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Muzik O, Duvernoy C, Beanlands RS, Sawada S, Dayanikli F, Wolfe Jr ER, et al. Assessment of diagnostic performance of quantitative flow measurements in normal subjects and patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease by means of nitrogen-13 ammonia and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:534–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Morton G, Chiribiri A, Ishida M, Hussain ST, Schuster A, Indermuehle A, et al. Quantification of absolute myocardial perfusion in patients with coronary artery disease: comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1546–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Anagnostopoulos C, Almonacid A, El Fakhri G, Curillova Z, Sitek A, Roughton M, et al. Quantitative relationship between coronary vasodilator reserve assessed by 82Rb PET imaging and coronary artery stenosis severity. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1593–601.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Packard RR, Huang SC, Dahlbom M, Czernin J, Maddahi J. Absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow in human subjects with or without myocardial ischemia using dynamic flurpiridaz F18 PET. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1438–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Beanlands RS, Chow BJ, Dick A, Friedrich MG, Gulenchyn KY, Kiess M, et al. CCS/CAR/CANM/CNCS/CanSCMR joint position statement on advanced noninvasive cardiac imaging using positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and multidetector computed tomographic angiography in the diagnosis and evaluation of ischemic heart disease – executive summary. Can J Cardiol. 2007;23:107–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF, Heidenreich PA, Henkin RE, Pellikka PA, et al. ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 appropriate use criteria for cardiac radionuclide imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Circulation. 2009;119:e561–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. JCS Joint Working Group. Guidelines for clinical use of cardiac nuclear medicine (JCS 2010). Digest version. Circ J. 2012;76:761–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Le Guludec D, Lautamäki R, Knuuti J, Bax JJ, Bengel FM, European Council of Nuclear Cardiology. Present and future of clinical cardiovascular PET imaging in Europe – a position statement by the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology (ECNC). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1709–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Flotats A, Knuuti J, Gutberlet M, Marcassa C, Bengel FM, Kaufmann PA, et al. Hybrid cardiac imaging: SPECT/CT and PET/CT. A joint position statement by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), the European Society of Cardiac Radiology (ESCR) and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology (ECNC). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:201–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Acampa W, Gaemperli O, Gimelli A, Knaapen P, Schindler TH, Verberne HJ, et al. Role of risk stratification by SPECT, PET, and hybrid imaging in guiding management of stable patients with ischaemic heart disease: expert panel of the EANM cardiovascular committee and EACVI. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:1289–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, Collet JP, Cremer J, Falk V, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. EuroIntervention. 2015;10:1024–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation. 2007;116:1290–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Achenbach S, Anders K, Kalender WA. Dual-source cardiac computed tomography: image quality and dose considerations. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1188–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Cerqueira MD, Allman KC, Ficaro EP, Hansen CL, Nichols KJ, Thompson RC. Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:709–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Senthamizhchelvan S, Bravo PE, Esaias C, Lodge MA, Merrill J, Hobbs RF, et al. Human biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 82Rb. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1592–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  141. Senthamizhchelvan S, Bravo PE, Lodge MA, Merrill J, Bengel FM, Sgouros G, et al. Radiation dosimetry of 82Rb in humans under pharmacologic stress. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:485–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Einstein AJ. Effects of radiation exposure from cardiac imaging: how good are the data? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:553–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. Hunter CR, Hill J, Ziadi MC, Beanlands RSB, de Kemp RA. Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 82Rb at rest and during peak pharmacological stress in patients referred for myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1032–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Naya M, Murthy VL, Blankstein R, Sitek A, Hainer J, Foster C, 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  145. Liga R, Marini C, Coceani M, Filidei E, Schlueter M, Bianchi M, et al. Structural abnormalities of the coronary arterial wall in addition to luminal narrowing affect myocardial blood flow reserve. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1704–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Graf S, Khorsand A, Gwechenberger M, Schütz M, Kletter K, Sochor H, et al. Typical chest pain and normal coronary angiogram: cardiac risk factor analysis versus PET for detection of microvascular disease. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:175–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Coceani M, Ciardetti M, Pasanisi E, Schlueter M, Palmieri C, Neglia D, et al. Surgical correction of left coronary artery origin from the right coronary artery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95:e1–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Said SA, Nijhuis RL, Akker JW, Takechi M, Slart RH, Bos JS, et al. Unilateral and multilateral congenital coronary-pulmonary fistulas in adults: clinical presentation, diagnostic modalities, and management with a brief review of the literature. Clin Cardiol. 2014;37:536–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Neglia D, De Maria R, Masi S, Gallopin M, Pisani P, Pardini S, et al. Effects of long-term treatment with carvedilol on myocardial blood flow in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Heart. 2007;93:808–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. Ben-Haim S, Murthy VL, Breault C, Allie R, Sitek A, Roth N, et al. Quantification of myocardial perfusion reserve using dynamic SPECT imaging in humans: a feasibility study. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:873–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  151. Nakauchi Y, Iwanaga Y, Ikuta S, Kudo M, Kobuke K, Murakami T, et al. Quantitative myocardial perfusion analysis using multi-row detector CT in acute myocardial infarction. Heart. 2012;98:566–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Lee DC, Johnson NP. Quantification of absolute myocardial blood flow by magnetic resonance perfusion imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:761–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Dill T. Contraindications to magnetic resonance imaging: non-invasive imaging. Heart. 2008;94:943–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy

    Roberto Sciagrà & Alessandro Passeri

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Jan Bucerius

  3. Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Jan Bucerius

  4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany

    Jan Bucerius

  5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Hein J. Verberne

  6. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Riemer H. J. A. Slart

  7. Faculty of Science and Technology Biomedical Photonic Imaging, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Riemer H. J. A. Slart

  8. Institute of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Heart and Diabetes Center NRW, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany

    Oliver Lindner

  9. Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, Pisa, Italy

    Alessia Gimelli

  10. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Bichat University Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, UMR 1148, Inserm and Paris Diderot-Paris 7 University, Département Hospitalo-Universitaire Fire, Paris, France

    Fabien Hyafil

  11. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Fabien Hyafil

  12. Laboratoire de Biophysique Medicale Faculte de Medecine, Siemens Healthcare, Caen, France

    Denis Agostini

  13. Department of Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Christopher Übleis

  14. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Marcus Hacker

Authors
  1. Roberto Sciagrà
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessandro Passeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Bucerius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hein J. Verberne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Riemer H. J. A. Slart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Oliver Lindner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alessia Gimelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Fabien Hyafil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Denis Agostini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Christopher Übleis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Marcus Hacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

on behalf of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Sciagrà.

Ethics declarations

Funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Ethical approval

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sciagrà, R., Passeri, A., Bucerius, J. et al. Clinical use of quantitative cardiac perfusion PET: rationale, modalities and possible indications. Position paper of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43, 1530–1545 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3317-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3317-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation