Assessing oral glucose and intravenous insulin loading protocol in ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography cardiac viability studies

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Oral glucose and intravenous insulin (G/I) loading protocols are commonly used in ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) cardiac viability studies. Although the amount of insulin to be given per blood glucose range has been well described in guidelines, the amount of glucose to be given is not detailed well. In this retrospective study, we aimed to assess if certain parameters, particularly the amount of glucose and insulin given, may affect ¹⁸F-FDG uptake in the hibernating myocardium and also determine the problems with this protocol. ¹⁸F-FDG PET cardiac viability study with G/I loading protocols was performed in 49 patients. Fasting blood glucose (FBG), amount of glucose given, blood glucose level after glucose load, amount of insulin given, and blood glucose level at the time of ¹⁸F-FDG injection were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed to determine if there is any difference in the above values in PET viable and PET nonviable groups and also in subgroups assessing ¹⁸F-FDG uptake also in normal myocardium. For G/I loading, we used our local protocol in 43 patients, and other protocols in six. ¹⁸F-FDG PET showed viability in 31 patients, and it was negative for viability in 18. In 22 patients, mainly in PET viable group, there was varying degree of reduced ¹⁸F-FDG uptake in normal myocardium. There was no significant difference in FBG, amount of glucose given, blood glucose level after glucose load, amount of insulin given, and blood glucose level at the time of ¹⁸F-FDG injection in PET viable and PET nonviable groups and also in subgroups. The problems with G/I loading protocol included deciding on the amounts of glucose and insulin given, maximum amount of insulin to be given, handling diabetics, optimal time to measure blood glucose after insulin administration, and interpretation of findings in cases with diffusely reduced ¹⁸F-FDG uptake. Further improvements in current guidelines are necessary to obtain images in optimal conditions for accurate results.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Publication History

Received: 03 June 2018

Accepted: 13 July 2018

Article published online:
19 April 2022

© 2020. Sociedade Brasileira de Neurocirurgia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

• References

• 1 Knuuti MJ, Nuutila P, Ruotsalainen U, Saraste M, Härkönen R, Ahonen A, et al. Euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp and oral glucose load in stimulating myocardial glucose utilization during positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med 1992;33:1255-62.
• 2 Soares J Jr., Rodrigues Filho F, Izaki M, Giorgi MC, Catapirra RM, Abe R, et al. Low-carbohydrate diet versus euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp for the assessment of myocardial viability with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET: A pilot study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;30:415-23.
• 3 Schinkel AF, Bax JJ, Valkema R, Elhendy A, van Domburg RT, Vourvouri EC, et al. Effect of diabetes mellitus on myocardial ¹⁸F-FDG SPECT using acipimox for the assessment of myocardial viability. J Nucl Med 2003;44:877-83.
• 4 Dilsizian V, Bacharach SL, Beanlands RS, Bergmann SR, Delbeke D, Dorbala S, et al. ASNC imaging guidelines/SNMMI procedure standard for positron emission tomography (PET) nuclear cardiology procedures. J Nucl Cardiol 2016;23:1187-226.
• 5 Vitale GD, deKemp RA, Ruddy TD, Williams K, Beanlands RS. Myocardial glucose utilization and optimization of (18) F-FDG PET imaging in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, and left ventricular dysfunction. J Nucl Med 2001;42:1730-6.
• 6 Fragasso G, Chierchia SL, Lucignani G, Landoni C, Conversano A, Gilardi MC, et al. Time dependence of residual tissue viability after myocardial infarction assessed by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography. Am J Cardiol 1993;72:131G-9G.
• 7 Martin WH, Jones RC, Delbeke D, Sandler MP. A simplified intravenous glucose loading protocol for fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose cardiac single-photon emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 1997;24:1291-7.
• 8 Dorbala S, Di Carli MF, Delbeke D, Abbara S, DePuey EG, Dilsizian V, et al. SNMMI/ASNC/SCCT guideline for cardiac SPECT/CT and PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med 2013;54:1485-507.
• 9 Weiss RG, Maslow M. Normal myocardial metabolism: Fueling cardiac contraction. Adv Stud Med 2004;4:457-63.
• 10 Patterson RE, Sigman SR, O'Donnell RE, Eisner RL. Viability assessment with MRI is superior to FDG-PET for viability: Con. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:298-309.
• 11 Yoshida K, Gould KL. Quantitative relation of myocardial infarct size and myocardial viability by positron emission tomography to left ventricular ejection fraction and 3-year mortality with and without revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;22:984-97.
• 12 Tian M, Koyama K, Zhang H, Oriuchi N, Higuchi T, Endo K, et al. Assessment of myocardial viability with a positron coincidence gamma camera using fluorodeoxyglucose in comparison with dedicated PET. Nucl Med Commun 2003;24:367-74.
• 13 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.
• 14 Abel ED. Glucose transport in the heart. Front Biosci 2004;9:201-15.
• 15 Sarikaya I, Elgazzar AH, Alfeeli MA, Sharma PN, Sarikaya A. Status of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in normal and hibernating myocardium after glucose and insulin loading. J Saudi Heart Assoc 2018;30:75-85.
• 16 Kobylecka M, Mączewska J, Fronczewska-Wieniawska K, Mazurek T, Płazińska MT, Królicki L, et al. Myocardial viability assessment in 18FDG PET/CT study (18FDG PET myocardial viability assessment). Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur 2012;15:52-60.
• 17 Lee JM, Okumura MJ, Davis MM, Herman WH, Gurney JG. Prevalence and determinants of insulin resistance among U.S. adolescents: A population-based study. Diabetes Care 2006;29:2427-32.
• 18 Ohtake T, Yokoyama I, Watanabe T, Momose T, Serezawa T, Nishikawa J, et al. Myocardial glucose metabolism in noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus patients evaluated by FDG-PET. J Nucl Med 1995;36:456-63.
• 19 Zellweger MJ, Pfisterer ME. Silent coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes mellitus. Swiss Med Wkly 2001;131:427-32.
• 20 Lazar HL. Alterations in myocardial metabolism in the diabetic myocardium. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;18:289-92.
• 21 vom Dahl J, Hicks RJ, Lee KS. Positron emission tomography myocardial viability studies in patients with diabetes mellitus. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;17:121A.
• 22 Faulenbach M, Uthoff H, Schwegler K, Spinas GA, Schmid C, Wiesli P, et al. Effect of psychological stress on glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med 2012;29:128-31.
• 23 Yuoness SA, Goha AM, Romsa JG, Akincioglu C, Warrington JC, Datta S, et al. Very high coronary artery calcium score with normal myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging is associated with a moderate incidence of severe coronary artery disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015;42:1542-50.
• 24 Yokota S, Mouden M, Ottervanger JP. High-risk coronary artery disease, but normal myocardial perfusion: A matter of concern? J Nucl Cardiol 2016;23:542-5.