Next Article in Journal
Former SARS-CoV-2 Infection Was Related to Decreased VO2 Peak and Exercise Hypertension in Athletes
Previous Article in Journal
Virtual Monoenergetic Imaging of Lower Extremities Using Dual-Energy CT Angiography in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/diagnostics13101791
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Role of Positron Emission Tomography in Advancing the Understanding of the Pathogenesis of Heart and Vascular Diseases

by
Anna Blach
1,2 and
Jacek Kwiecinski
3,*
1
Department of Cardiology and Structural Heart Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, 40-055 Katowice, Poland
2
Nuclear Medicine Department, Voxel Diagnostic Center, 40-514 Katowice, Poland
3
Department of Interventional Cardiology and Angiology, Institute of Cardiology, 04-628 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2023, 13(10), 1791; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13101791
Submission received: 11 April 2023 / Revised: 14 May 2023 / Accepted: 16 May 2023 / Published: 18 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Medical Imaging and Theranostics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. For developing new therapies, a better understanding of the underlying pathology is required. Historically, such insights have been primarily derived from pathological studies. In the 21st century, thanks to the advent of cardiovascular positron emission tomography (PET), which depicts the presence and activity of pathophysiological processes, it is now feasible to assess disease activity in vivo. By targeting distinct biological pathways, PET elucidates the activity of the processes which drive disease progression, adverse outcomes or, on the contrary, those that can be considered as a healing response. Given the insights provided by PET, this non-invasive imaging technology lends itself to the development of new therapies, providing a hope for the emergence of strategies that could have a profound impact on patient outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss recent advances in cardiovascular PET imaging which have greatly advanced our understanding of atherosclerosis, ischemia, infection, adverse myocardial remodeling and degenerative valvular heart disease.

1. Introduction

Positron emission tomography (PET) is a non-invasive, functional imaging test utilizing ionizing radiation, the source of which is a radioactive isotope (radionuclide) administered to the patient. By measuring the radioactivity in the examined organs, PET enables tracking dynamic biological processes in vivo on three-dimensional images. The principle of cardiac PET imaging is based on intravenous administration of a radionuclide-tagged tracer molecule (radiotracer) and subsequent registration of the radiation emitted by it by the detector in which the patient is placed.

2. Physics

A wide range of radionuclides for PET molecular imaging of the heart are available: 18F, 13N, 82Rb, 15O and 68Ga; as unstable radioactive elements, they exhibit spontaneous decay. The unstable state is not a feature characteristic for most naturally existing atoms—but it can be artificially achieved with the transmutation of elements in an accelerator. To restore a stable state, a radionuclide undergoes a transformation of its core via positron emission, according to β+ (positron) decay:
p → n + β + + v
where p —proton, n —neutron, v —neutrino and β + —positron (beta particle, positively charged electron).
A positron is a positive-charged anti-matter to an electron. Emitted from the unstable nucleus, it travels within the surrounding tissue, gradually losing its kinetic energy through interactions with nearby bond-electrons to finally encounter a loose electron to annihilate with, resulting in the conversion of their masses into the energy of two photons ejected simultaneously in two opposite directions, each carrying the energy of 511 KeV [1,2], Figure 1.
Before reaching the PET scanner detection ring, photons interact with other charged particles, which leads to Compton scattering, i.e., loss of energy and change in direction, reducing the photon flux. The likelihood and degree of absorption or scattering (attenuation) is proportional to tissue density and detector distance, negatively influencing the sensitivity and spatio-temporal resolution. Hence, to obtain high-quality images and accurate quantitation of tracer uptake, attenuation correction must be applied. Compared with past generations of stand-alone PET scanners, nowadays PET–CT scanners allow for CT attenuation and scatter correction, resolving the two most prominent limitations of the first generation of PET. Typically acquired in parallel to the PET emission scan, CT or MR can additionally be reviewed for anatomical reference, including diagnostic information such as the presence of coronary calcium and/or extra-cardiac morphological findings within a single imaging session [3].
In cardiovascular imaging, PET can be leveraged for viability, perfusion, infiltrative disease and, more recently, for atherosclerotic plaque and valvular degeneration assessments. The two most widely employed applications of cardiovascular PET are viability and perfusion (flow) imaging. The former relies on identifying those cardiomyocytes that are alive, defined by the presence of cellular, metabolic function; the latter refers to the evaluation of blood supply to the myocardium, which can be hampered due to flow-limiting stenoses within the epicardial coronary vessels and/or the microvasculature.

3. Myocardial Perfusion and Flow Imaging

Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) with radionuclide PET is one of the non-invasive imaging methods that can provide rapid and accurate information about the extent of ischemia. The gold standard for assessing perfusion is the use of O15-labeled water, a freely diffusible tracer with nearly 100% first-pass extraction from the blood [4,5]. A major limitation of this tracer is its short half-life of about 2 min, which results in the need for a cyclotron within the PET scanner neighborhood so that it can be produced and administered to the patient in a very short timeframe. Consequently, non-diffusion tracers such as N13-ammonia (13NH3) and 82-rubidium chloride (82Rb), which either have a longer half-life (13NH3) or are produced in a generator in the PET scanner room (82Rb), are more widely employed for MPI (Table 1 and Table 2) [6,7].
The obtained resting and stress perfusion images are compared, determining the presence, location and size of perfusion defects qualitatively and semi-quantitatively. By semi-quantitatively estimating the severity of the defect, one relates the degree of tracer uptake in each segment to that in which the uptake is greatest—thus obtaining relative perfusion data. When perfusion in the reference area is impaired, these data are inadequate for the actual flow rate, leading to false-negative findings—an issue that is particularly relevant in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, as well as left main disease [8,9]. As shown in a recent study, this situation occurs in as many as 4.5% of symptomatic patients with multivessel disease [10]. Another important cohort comprises patients with normal coronary arteries in whom microvascular dysfunction is suspected: especially women, diabetic patients and patients with chronic kidney disease [6]. These obstacles have been effectively eliminated with the introduction of dynamic flow acquisitions with quantitative assessments of global and regional myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR), which is the ratio of maximal flow in a hyperemic state to myocardial blood flow at rest.
Since the first studies evaluating coronary reserve in relation to the degree of vascular stenosis were published almost 50 years ago [11], the clinical relevance of flow reserve has been widely recognized. While nowadays assessments of flow reserve are primarily performed invasively during coronary catheterization, such assessments can be conducted using PET. A great advantage of PET MBF measurements is not simply that they are noninvasive, but more importantly that they analyze not only the relative data resulting from flow through a portion of a single vessel [12], but they demonstrate the absolute values of coronary flow through the entire thickness of the tissues involved, with no additional radiation and exposures as low as 0.5 mSv [13,14,15]. The method has been shown to be highly reproducible [16], and maintains a high prognostic value independent of the body mass index (BMI) [17,18]. According to COVADIS, impaired coronary flow reserve with cutoff values ≤2.0 and impaired hyperemic MBF has been recognized as one of the diagnostic criteria for microvascular angina [19].

4. Viability

There is a complex relationship between myocardial perfusion, mechanical function and metabolism. Numerous studies have evaluated the accuracy of viability imaging for prospective identification of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and potentially reversible left ventricular (LV) dysfunction who can benefit from future revascularization [19,20,21,22,23]. With respect to metabolic or contractile reserve, LV impairment may have two causes: (a) irremediable necrosis equal to scarring and (b) different but overlapping reversible stunning and hibernation. The most established nuclear medicine technique to image heart metabolism utilizes 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18FDG)-PET, and since 1986 it continues to serve as a “gold standard” to differentiate a scar from viable hibernated myocardium [24].
Under normal conditions, myocytes as the “omnivorous” cells use free fatty acids (FFAs) as a preferable source of energy via the highly energetic, oxygen-dependent process of beta-oxidation. Prolonged ischemia is a status when the main source of energy is switched to glucose derived from anaerobic glycolysis, and in consequence leads to a substantial increase in glucose utilization [25]. This phenomenon can be depicted with PET. As a glucose analog, 18FDG is absorbed by cardiac myocytes, becoming a surrogate marker of myocardial glucose uptake. 18FDG is actively transported into the cells by GLUT-1 and four glucose transporters in the same way as a “normal” glucose molecule. As 18FDG-6-phosphate cannot be transformed back to 18FDG, it is eventually trapped inside the cell, providing an opportunity for a non-invasive assessment of glucose metabolism with PET [25]. 18FDG PET viability evaluation involves a combination of rest MPI (either PET or single photon emission computed tomography SPECT) and 18FDG metabolic imaging in order to determine one of three patterns of perfusion vs. viability: (1) normal conditions—preserved myocardial perfusion and viability. (2) Viable hibernation, a mismatch—reduced perfusion and preserved viability. (3) Non-viable scar, a match—reduced MPI and viability (Figure 2 and Figure 3) [26,27].
The current societal guidelines by AHA/ACC/HFSA in 2022 [28] and ESC in 2021 [29] state with similar class II recommendation that non-invasive stress imaging, including PET, may be considered for the assessment of myocardial ischemia and viability in patients with CAD who are considered suitable for coronary revascularization.
These recommendations are based on landmark clinical trials. The first broad meta-analysis of 24 studies by Allman et al. in 2002, which included 3088 patients [30], explored the potential changes in the outcomes of patients with established coronary artery disease and LV dysfunction and demonstrated a strong association between myocardial viability on noninvasive testing and improved survival after revascularization [30]. No benefit was associated with revascularization without confirmed viability, irrespectively of the imaging modality used. This notion was not confirmed in the initial analysis of the STICH trial, where viability assessed with less advanced techniques in patients referred to surgical revascularization did not improve outcomes [31]; however, over longer follow-up, there was an improvement in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality with viability-guided surgical revascularization [32]. The rational for selecting PET for viability imaging was confirmed by another post hoc analysis. In the PARR-2 study, a significant reduction in cardiac events was observed in patients with 18FDG-PET-assisted management compared with patients who received optimal medical treatment in a center with easy access to 18FDG and integration with experienced clinical teams [33]. More recently, the REVIVED-BCIs2 prospective randomized trial did not support the hypothesis that percutaneous revascularization in combination with optimal medical treatment may improve event-free survival in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and viable myocardium compared with a strategy of medical treatment alone, even in patients with reduced ejection fraction [34,35]. Considering the aforementioned studies, the role of myocardial viability in guiding revascularization remains controversial. Balancing procedural risks and expected benefit from revascularization is still a key question in patients with ischemic heart failure—therefore, it seems that 18FDG PET myocardial viability testing is a helpful tool when it is carefully matched with the patient’s profile [36], particularly in high surgical risk patients, elderly individuals with severe LV impairment and patients with a history of prior surgical revascularization and/or complex comorbidities [36]. Additionally, patients with advanced coronary artery disease referred for high-risk revascularization of chronically occluded arteries also appear to be among those who could derive the greatest benefit from PET imaging [37,38]. Indeed, it has been previously shown that viability testing with 18FDG PET–CT or PET–MR in patients with CTO can identify those who shall show functional improvement following revascularization [39,40].

5. Multiparametric Myocardial Perfusion Imaging

Given that PET MPI provides a wealth of imaging information including perfusion, absolute blood flow and function, it can be challenging to optimally integrate these data at the point of care. The complex interplay of various perfusion, flow and functional imaging estimates from PET has therefore been extensively studied. Initial analyses applied fixed thresholds for perfusion and flow, demonstrating that the inclusion of both provides improved risk stratification [41,42]. More recently, in an attempt to combine this information in a single variable, Gould et al. established that the coronary flow capacity can identify patients at a high risk of cardiovascular events [43].
In an attempt to address this clinical need, Singh et al. employed artificial intelligence for the optimal integration of perfusion, flow and function [44]. Utilizing over 4000 PET datasets, the authors showed that an explainable deep learning model which combines multiparametric imaging data outperforms flow or perfusion when these are considered in isolation for mortality prediction. This state-of-the-art deep learning model operated directly on polar maps without the need for derivation and selection of quantitative measurements, streamlining the analysis. Importantly, the study also addressed the need for explainable artificial intelligence. By highlighting regions contributing to the deep learning score on polar maps and ranking the relative contribution from different inputs for a specific patient, it facilitates the adoption of deep learning, as it improves confidence in the results and overcomes the perception of artificial intelligence as a “black box” [45].

6. Infective Endocarditis

Among various applications of PET–CT, it has emerged as a powerful diagnostic tool in the setting of a suspected cardiovascular infection [46,47,48]. Infective endocarditis (IE) is an infrequent, life-threatening condition with mortality up to 40% [49,50]. Its frequency varies by gender and predisposing factors, with a steady increase in prevalence over the past two decades in high-income countries [49,51]. Paradoxically, advances in modern medicine, improved healthcare and expenditure do not appear to be a viable solution to the problem. The most probable cause of the increasing prevalence of IE is the growing population of elderly, high-risk, multi-morbid patients who receive implantable devices containing artificial materials posing a risk for IE, e.g., vascular catheters, grafts, prosthetic heart valves, occluders, cardiac implantable electronic devices (CDIEs) and left ventricle assist devices (LVADs). The predominant IE etiology is Staphylococcus aureus on native heart valves and coagulase-negative staphylococci on artificial implants, followed by viridans streptococci [52,53].
In normal conditions, the intact endocardium is resistant to bacterial colonization, although when micro-injured, it becomes susceptible to bacterial colonization [54]. Recent studies have demonstrated that 18FDG PET is useful for detecting infections associated not only with native valves and arteries, but also with implantable devices and grafts, with a sensitivity of 93% for prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) and poorer, only 22%, for native valve endocarditis [55,56]. Accurate diagnosis is frequently difficult due to limitations in first-line imaging with echocardiography and/or CT alone. The most important aspects of the treatment of infective endocarditis are early diagnosis, identification of the microorganism, its drug susceptibility, early initiation of antibiotic therapy and surgical intervention, if needed.
The mechanism of 18FDG uptake in infectious and inflammatory foci is based on the increased glycolytic activity in the state of tissue hypoxia [57]. It was shown that activated macrophages, neutrophil granulocytes and CD4+ leukocytes show upregulation in GLUT-1 and GLUT-3 receptors [58,59,60]. Moreover, hyperemia and increased vessel wall permeability lead to an increase in glucose influx into the cytoplasm. Many reports suggest that 18FDG uptake reaches a maximum during the subacute phase of infection and then gradually decreases in the chronic phase, which explains why the sensitivity of 18FDG PET is highest in the acute phase of infection [61,62]. Based on the literature, there are two primary indications for 18FDG PET imaging in individuals with suspected IE: (1) to identify and confirm that IE is localized within the heart and/or the aorta, particularly in patients with inconclusive or negative results on initial first-line imaging, and (2) to diagnose the extent of infection by depicting the frequently underdiagnosed silent remote infectious emboli.
The primary advantage of employing this technique is the decrease in IE misdiagnoses.
18FDG PET–CT perivalvular uptake has been embodied in the 2015 ESC infective endocarditis guidelines in prosthetic valve endocarditis as a major criterion and extracardiac uptake as a minor criterion for both prosthetic and native valve endocarditis patients [47].
Despite the fact that native valve endocarditis represents more than half of all IE cases, the data regarding this condition remain limited [63]. In a meta-analysis including 351 cases of suspected native valve endocarditis, Kamani et al. showed a poor pooled sensitivity (36.3%) but an excellent pooled specificity (99.1%) of 18FDG PET–CT [64]. These findings were followed by a prospective study from Philip et al. [65] and have been consistent with prior studies [66,67], confirming altogether low sensitivity but excellent almost 100% specificity of 18FDG PET imaging in the diagnosis of suspected IE. The reason for poor sensitivity is complex and involves (a) small vegetation size, typically < 10 mm, (b) insufficient temporal resolution necessary to depict the rapid movement of valve leaves and (c) the inflammatory response, which is less prominent in native valve than in prosthetic valve endocarditis, with more fibrotic tissue in comparison to a larger number of active polymorphonuclear cells, respectively. Despite these limitations, the authors reported high usefulness of 18FDG PET in about 30% of patients with native valve endocarditis, as it allows the diagnosis of a peripheral embolism or mycotic aneurysm, thus indisputably improving the sensitivity without decreasing specificity. Nevertheless, due to its low sensitivity, negative intracardiac 18FDG PET–CT findings cannot, however, be used to exclude the presence of native valve endocarditis.
The authors have also proposed that the frequently observed elevated diffuse 18FDG splenic uptake may be considered as a possible new minor diagnostic criterion for native valve endocarditis [65]. The TEPvENDO prospective study by Duval et al. [68] provides further data supporting the use of 18FDG PET in patients with suspected IE. The diagnostic and patient management modifications induced by systematic whole body 18FDG PET–CT analysis improved IE diagnosis in patients with both prosthetic and native valves (up to one patient out of five) and modified classification and/or management in 40% of patients—which indicates that a sizable proportion of patients with both native and prosthetic valve endocarditis benefited from 18FDG PET–CT.
In patients with a suspected prosthetic valve endocarditis, both visual and quantitative assessments of 18FDG PET–CT have a high diagnostic sensitivity. To improve the diagnostic accuracy and interobserver reliability, a novel quantitative standardized cutoff of >2.0 for the ratio between 18FDG uptake around the affected valve and in the blood pool (standardized uptake value ratio) was proposed by Swart et al. [69]. This approach increased the sensitivity and specificity of 18FDG PET–CT to 100% and 90%, respectively.
Several factors such as low disease activity (most frequently due to prolonged antimicrobial treatment), time after surgical intervention <3 months, prior use of surgical adhesives and physiological myocardial 18FDG accumulation have an adverse impact on the sensitivity [70], given that, to diminish the probability of false-negative 18FDG PET scans, it is essential to follow the procedural guidelines regarding high-fat, low-carbohydrate (HFLC) dietary preparation, administer heparin infusion if not contraindicated and adhere to a timely implementation of 18FDG PET–CT scanning [71]. It is of immense importance to utilize 18FDG PET–CT early in the diagnostic process, when the infection activity is high and the patient’s C-reactive protein levels are greater than 40 mg/L [69,72]. Prior use of surgical adhesives may result in a false-positive 18FDG uptake, which must be considered [69,73]. However, it should be noted that to avoid mistakes and to differentiate abnormal perivalvular uptake associated with IE from normal perivalvular uptake associated with a prosthetic valve, 18FDG PET–CT scans must be qualitatively interpreted by trained specialists, with obligatory analysis of attenuation-corrected and non-corrected images as recommended by societal guidelines [70] (Figure 4).
18FDG PET–CT plays a particularly important role in patients with IE associated with implantable devices (cardiac implanted device endocarditis—CDRIE). Performing PET imaging to visualize metabolic alterations before they become detectable on morphological studies is often crucial in deciding whether to explant the device [74,75]. Considering the unpredictable and often recalcitrant nature of IE, with cases not seldom complicated by heart failure and valvular structural destruction, this condition should be managed at a reference center by a dedicated endocarditis team that includes nuclear cardiologists.

7. Atherosclerotic Plaque Imaging

Beyond imaging infection, viability and myocardial perfusion, cardiac PET has the potential to depict the activity of the biology of atherosclerosis (Table 3).
We have learned by means of pathological studies that atherosclerosis is initiated by the deposition of cholesterol within the arterial intima, which is followed by an inflammatory response [76]. This leads to cell death and the formation of a large lipid-rich necrotic core which promotes further disease progression and eventually plaque rupture. Calcification occurs as a healing response to intense necrotic plaque inflammation. While the early stage of developing microcalcification is considered a common feature of ruptured or unstable plaques where healing is incomplete and inflammation remains active, macrocalcification leads to containment and stability of the plaque [77,78]. Over the past decade, PET was shown to enable non-invasive assessment of the aforementioned processes, which play a key role in plaque progression and rupture.
Multiple tracers depicting plaque inflammation and microcalcification have been evaluated. While both 18FDG and Somatostatin analogs (68GA-DOTATE) have shown hope in identifying inflamed atherosclerotic lesions, to date we lack outcome data that would demonstrate the prognostic value of these techniques. In contrast, 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF)-, which has been traditionally used for imaging bone malignancies as it depicts areas of rapid bone-turnover, has shown great promise in imaging coronary atherosclerosis. The tracer diffuses via the capillary network into the extracellular fluid, and then it exchanges with hydroxyl groups on exposed regions of hydroxyapatite crystals on the calcification (bone) surface to form fluorapatite [79]. In cardiovascular 18F-NaF PET imaging, the surface area of hydroxyapatite appears to be the major factor affecting 18F-NaF uptake [80]. Indeed, 18F-NaF binding is highest in areas of microcalcification compared with large macroscopic deposits due to the very high surface area of hydroxyapatite in regions of powdery microcalcification [80].
Initial studies explored the utility of 18F-NaF PET in imaging recently ruptured plaques in patients with type one myocardial infarction [81]. Joshi et al. showed that intense 1⁸F-NaF uptake localizes to recent plaque rupture in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Moreover, in patients with stable coronary artery disease, 1⁸F-NaF uptake identified coronary plaques with high-risk features on intravascular ultrasound. The authors concluded that 1⁸F-NaF PET holds major promise as a tool for identifying high-risk and ruptured plaque, and potentially for informing the future management and treatment of patients with stable and unstable coronary artery disease [81]. These exciting results have led to further research which focused on exploring the clinical utility of the method and optimizing the technical aspects of coronary 18F-NaF PET. These latter efforts resulted in the development of dedicated tools for correcting for cardio-respiratory motion and optimized the acquisition, reconstruction and image analysis protocols. It was demonstrated that correcting for motion and the delay from tracer injection to image acquisition resulted in an improved reproducibility and image quality [82,83,84,85]. Dedicated reconstruction parameters along with a pancoronary uptake measure (the coronary microcalficiation activity) provide an opportunity for a patient-level assessment which is more closely associated with outcomes than single-pixel uptake values and has improved reproducibility [86,87,88,89,90]. Most recently, dedicated software and artificial intelligence tools have been shown to further streamline the analysis [91,92].
In parallel to these technical developments, observational studies have provided further multimodality and histological validation. 18F-NaF uptake has been linked to unfavorable plaque morphology on both invasive and non-invasive imaging [93,94,95]. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that 18F-NaF activity is associated with coronary inflammation measured on CT by means of assessments of the pericoronary adipose tissue attenuation [96,97]. Ultimately, by leveraging the technical refinements and the available observational data, a post hoc analysis showed that in patients with established coronary artery disease, 18F-NaF coronary uptake acts as a strong independent predictor of myocardial infarction (Figure 5) [98]. Importantly, 18F-NaF PET outperformed a wide range of established predictors including the presence of comorbidities; risk scores; coronary calcium scoring; and the presence, severity and extent of coronary artery disease. These exciting findings have been confirmed in further studies [99,100,101].
Recently, the utility of 18F-NaF PET beyond imaging coronary atherosclerosis has been extensively studied. As calcification is a hallmark of disease across a wide range of cardiovascular conditions, unsurprisingly, 18F-NaF uptake has been demonstrated to consistently predict progression and outcomes. This holds true for peripheral vascular atherosclerosis in relation to stent restenosis and ischemic stroke, aortic aneurysms in relation to aneurysm expansion requiring surgical repair and valvular heart disease [99,102,103,104,105]. The latter application includes both native aortic valve disease and bioprosthetic valve degeneration [106,107]. While, until recently, we lacked methods for the prediction of bioprosthesis failure, which can have catastrophic consequences unless detected and managed early, 18F-NaF lends itself to the population of patients with bioprosthetic valves. By identifying those who shall develop bioprosthesis failure, 18F-NaF provides hope that redo valve replacement, which is a high-risk undertaking, could be performed electively, thus mitigating the procedural risk.
Beyond the aforementioned radionuclides, currently multiple efforts have been made to develop novel tracers that would target key biological pathways involved in plaque progression and rupture. These include molecules targeting the endothelial vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) and the PFKFB3 enzyme, of which the expression is correlated with the presence of angiogenesis and vulnerable plaque formation [108,109]. Novel tracers have been also proposed for imaging infections. Instead of depicting areas of increased metabolism—which is the mechanism underlying 18FDG PET—new tracers target bacterial D-amino acids [110,111]. Beyond providing high specificity for bacterial infection, these tracers have the potential to clarify the etiology of infectious disease [111].
While over the past decades multiple non-invasive imaging approaches have been successfully adopted in several clinical applications, PET remains a key modality in modern practice. Despite the relatively high cost and ionizing radiation, due to its unique ability to image disease activity and metabolism at a molecular level, independence of acoustic windows (which hampers echocardiographic assessments) and utility in patients with implantable devices (which cannot undergo magnetic resonance imaging), cardiac PET imaging is a powerful non-invasive tool which can benefit patients at the point of care. Importantly, PET can be available in PET–CT or PET–MR configurations, with both hybrid scanners being advantageous in particular conditions. Although PET—CT is more widely employed, in diseases involving the myocardium the insights provided by MR imaging can be particularly valuable. Initially, a key limitation of PET/MR was the difficulty of obtaining attenuation correction—nowadays, this issue can be addressed with Dixon or Gradient Recalled Echo sequences [112]. While currently only a handful of radiotracers are widely utilized in the clinical setting, given the rapidly progressing development of new tracers, in the future we will likely witness growing uptake of this promising technology. In particular, in view of the progress in hardware with digital scanners which offer improved resolution, novel application of PET shall soon become adopted.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Phelps, M.E.; Hoffman, E.J.; Mullani, N.A.; Ter-Pogossian, M.M. Application of Annihilation Coincidence Detection to Transaxial Reconstruction Tomography. J. Nucl. Med. Off. Publ. Soc. Nucl. Med. 1975, 16, 210–224. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bailey, D.L.; Townsend, D.W.; Valk, P.E.; Maisey, M.N. Positron Emission Tomography: Basic Sciences; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; ISBN 978-1-84628-007-8. [Google Scholar]
  3. Pan, J.A.; Salerno, M. Clinical Utility and Future Applications of PET/CT and PET/CMR in Cardiology. Diagnostics 2016, 6, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Bergmann, S.R.; Fox, K.A.; Rand, A.L.; McElvany, K.D.; Welch, M.J.; Markham, J.; Sobel, B.E. Quantification of Regional Myocardial Blood Flow in Vivo with H215O. Circulation 1984, 70, 724–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Maaniitty, T.; Knuuti, J.; Saraste, A. 15O-Water PET MPI: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Semin. Nucl. Med. 2020, 50, 238–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sciagrà, R.; Lubberink, M.; Hyafil, F.; Saraste, A.; Slart, R.H.J.A.; Agostini, D.; Nappi, C.; Georgoulias, P.; Bucerius, J.; Rischpler, C.; et al. EANM Procedural Guidelines for PET/CT Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion Imaging. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2021, 48, 1040–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Driessen, R.S.; Raijmakers, P.G.; Stuijfzand, W.J.; Knaapen, P. Myocardial Perfusion Imaging with PET. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2017, 33, 1021–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Berman, D.S.; Kang, X.; Slomka, P.J.; Gerlach, J.; de Yang, L.; Hayes, S.W.; Friedman, J.D.; Thomson, L.E.J.; Germano, G. Underestimation of Extent of Ischemia by Gated SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Patients with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease. J. Nucl. Cardiol. Off. Publ. Am. Soc. Nucl. Cardiol. 2007, 14, 521–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lima, R.S.L.; Watson, D.D.; Goode, A.R.; Siadaty, M.S.; Ragosta, M.; Beller, G.A.; Samady, H. Incremental Value of Combined Perfusion and Function over Perfusion Alone by Gated SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging for Detection of Severe Three-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2003, 42, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Maaniitty, T.; Stenström, I.; Saraste, A.; Knuuti, J. Extensive and Balanced Reduction of Myocardial Blood Flow in Patients with Suspected Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease: 15O-Water PET Study. Int. J. Cardiol. 2021, 338, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gould, K.L.; Lipscomb, K.; Hamilton, G.W. Physiologic Basis for Assessing Critical Coronary Stenosis. Instantaneous Flow Response and Regional Distribution during Coronary Hyperemia as Measures of Coronary Flow Reserve. Am. J. Cardiol. 1974, 33, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Johnson, N.P.; Gould, K.L. Fractional Flow Reserve Returns to Its Origins: Quantitative Cardiac Positron Emission Tomography. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2016, 9, e005435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Murthy, V.L.; Bateman, T.M.; Beanlands, R.S.; Berman, D.S.; Borges-Neto, S.; Chareonthaitawee, P.; Cerqueira, M.D.; deKemp, R.A.; DePuey, E.G.; Dilsizian, V.; et al. Clinical Quantification of Myocardial Blood Flow Using PET: Joint Position Paper of the SNMMI Cardiovascular Council and the ASNC. J. Nucl. Cardiol. Off. Publ. Am. Soc. Nucl. Cardiol. 2018, 25, 269–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Danad, I.; Uusitalo, V.; Kero, T.; Saraste, A.; Raijmakers, P.G.; Lammertsma, A.A.; Heymans, M.W.; Kajander, S.A.; Pietilä, M.; James, S.; 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, 1464–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Gould, K.L.; Johnson, N.P.; Bateman, T.M.; Beanlands, R.S.; Bengel, F.M.; Bober, R.; Camici, P.G.; Cerqueira, M.D.; Chow, B.J.W.; Di Carli, M.F.; 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, 1639–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Nesterov, S.V.; Han, C.; Mäki, M.; Kajander, S.; Naum, A.G.; Helenius, H.; Lisinen, I.; Ukkonen, H.; Pietilä, M.; Joutsiniemi, E.; et al. Myocardial Perfusion Quantitation with 15O-Labelled Water PET: High Reproducibility of the New Cardiac Analysis Software (Carimas). Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2009, 36, 1594–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chow, B.J.W.; Dorbala, S.; Di Carli, M.F.; Merhige, M.E.; Williams, B.A.; Veledar, E.; Min, J.K.; Pencina, M.J.; Yam, Y.; Chen, L.; et al. Prognostic Value of PET Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Obese Patients. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2014, 7, 278–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dorbala, S.; Di Carli, M.F.; Beanlands, R.S.; Merhige, M.E.; Williams, B.A.; Veledar, E.; Chow, B.J.W.; Min, J.K.; Pencina, M.J.; Berman, D.S.; et al. Prognostic Value of Stress Myocardial Perfusion Positron Emission Tomography: Results from a Multicenter Observational Registry. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013, 61, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Schinkel, A.F.L.; Bax, J.J.; Poldermans, D.; Elhendy, A.; Ferrari, R.; Rahimtoola, S.H. Hibernating Myocardium: Diagnosis and Patient Outcomes. Curr. Probl. Cardiol. 2007, 32, 375–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bax, J.; van der Wall, E.E.; Harbinson, M. Radionuclide Techniques for the Assessment of Myocardial Viability and Hibernation. Heart 2004, 90, v26–v33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ling, L.F.; Marwick, T.H.; Flores, D.R.; Jaber, W.A.; Brunken, R.C.; Cerqueira, M.D.; Hachamovitch, R. Identification of Therapeutic Benefit from Revascularization in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: Inducible Ischemia versus Hibernating Myocardium. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2013, 6, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shah, D.J.; Kim, H.W.; James, O.; Parker, M.; Wu, E.; Bonow, R.O.; Judd, R.M.; Kim, R.J. Prevalence of Regional Myocardial Thinning and Relationship with Myocardial Scarring in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease. JAMA 2013, 309, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Orlandini, A.; Castellana, N.; Pascual, A.; Botto, F.; Bahit, M.C.; Chacon, C.; Diaz, M.L.; Diaz, R. Myocardial Viability for Decision-Making Concerning Revascularization in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Non-Randomized and Randomized Studies. Int. J. Cardiol. 2015, 182, 494–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Tillisch, J.; Brunken, R.; Marshall, R.; Schwaiger, M.; Mandelkern, M.; Phelps, M.; Schelbert, H. Reversibility of Cardiac Wall-Motion Abnormalities Predicted by Positron Tomography. N. Engl. J. Med. 1986, 314, 884–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ghosh, N.; Rimoldi, O.E.; Beanlands, R.S.B.; Camici, P.G. Assessment of Myocardial Ischaemia and Viability: Role of Positron Emission Tomography. Eur. Heart J. 2010, 31, 2984–2995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Gunning, M.G.; Kaprielian, R.R.; Pepper, J.; Pennell, D.J.; Sheppard, M.N.; Severs, N.J.; Fox, K.M.; Underwood, S.R. The Histology of Viable and Hibernating Myocardium in Relation to Imaging Characteristics. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2002, 39, 428–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dilsizian, V.; Bacharach, S.L.; Beanlands, R.S.; Bergmann, S.R.; Delbeke, D.; Dorbala, S.; Gropler, R.J.; Knuuti, J.; Schelbert, H.R.; Travin, M.I. ASNC Imaging Guidelines/SNMMI Procedure Standard for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Nuclear Cardiology Procedures. J. Nucl. Cardiol. Off. Publ. Am. Soc. Nucl. Cardiol. 2016, 23, 1187–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Heidenreich, P.A.; Bozkurt, B.; Aguilar, D.,; Allen, L.A.; Byun, J.J.; Colvin, M.M.; Deswal, A.; Drazner, M.H.; Dunlay, S.M.; Evers, L.R.; et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2022, 79, e263–e421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. McDonagh, T.A.; Metra, M.; Adamo, M.; Gardner, R.S.; Baumbach, A.; Böhm, M.; Burri, H.; Butler, J.; Čelutkienė, J.; Chioncel, O.; et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 3599–3726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Allman, K.C.; Shaw, L.J.; Hachamovitch, R.; Udelson, J.E. 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, 1151–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Velazquez, E.J.; Lee, K.L.; O’Connor, C.M.; Oh, J.K.; Bonow, R.O.; Pohost, G.M.; Feldman, A.M.; Mark, D.B.; Panza, J.A.; Sopko, G.; et al. The Rationale and Design of the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) Trial. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2007, 134, 1540–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Petrie, M.C.; Jhund, P.S.; She, L.; Adlbrecht, C.; Doenst, T.; Panza, J.A.; Hill, J.A.; Lee, K.L.; Rouleau, J.L.; Prior, D.L.; et al. Ten-Year Outcomes after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting According to Age in Patients with Heart Failure and Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: An Analysis of the Extended Follow-up of the STICH Trial (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure). Circulation 2016, 134, 1314–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Abraham, A.; Nichol, G.; Williams, K.A.; Guo, A.; deKemp, R.A.; Garrard, L.; Davies, R.A.; Duchesne, L.; Haddad, H.; Chow, B.; et al. 18F-FDG PET Imaging of Myocardial Viability in an Experienced Center with Access to 18F-FDG and Integration with Clinical Management Teams: The Ottawa-FIVE Substudy of the PARR 2 Trial. J. Nucl. Med. Off. Publ. Soc. Nucl. Med. 2010, 51, 567–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Perera, D.; Clayton, T.; O’Kane, P.D.; Greenwood, J.P.; Weerackody, R.; Ryan, M.; Morgan, H.P.; Dodd, M.; Evans, R.; Canter, R.; et al. Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 387, 1351–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Perera, D.; Clayton, T.; Petrie, M.C.; Greenwood, J.P.; O’Kane, P.D.; Evans, R.; Sculpher, M.; Mcdonagh, T.; Gershlick, A.; de Belder, M.; et al. Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction: Rationale and Design of the REVIVED-BCIS2 Trial: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Ischemic Cardiomyopathy. JACC Heart Fail. 2018, 6, 517–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kandolin, R.M.; Wiefels, C.C.; Mesquita, C.T.; Chong, A.-Y.; Boland, P.; Glineur, D.; Sun, L.; Beanlands, R.S.; Mielniczuk, L.M. The Current Role of Viability Imaging to Guide Revascularization and Therapy Decisions in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Left Ventricular Function. Can. J. Cardiol. 2019, 35, 1015–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lee, S.-W.; Lee, P.H.; Ahn, J.-M.; Park, D.-W.; Yun, S.-C.; Han, S.; Kang, H.; Kang, S.-J.; Kim, Y.-H.; Lee, C.W.; et al. Randomized Trial Evaluating Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for the Treatment of Chronic Total Occlusion. Circulation 2019, 139, 1674–1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tajstra, M.; Pyka, Ł.; Gorol, J.; Pres, D.; Gierlotka, M.; Gadula-Gacek, E.; Kurek, A.; Wasiak, M.; Hawranek, M.; Zembala, M.O.; et al. Impact of Chronic Total Occlusion of the Coronary Artery on Long-Term Prognosis in Patients with Ischemic Systolic Heart Failure: Insights from the COMMIT-HF Registry. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016, 9, 1790–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kiko, T.; Yokokawa, T.; Misaka, T.; Masuda, A.; Yoshihisa, A.; Yamaki, T.; Kunii, H.; Nakazato, K.; Takeishi, Y. Myocardial Viability with Chronic Total Occlusion Assessed by Hybrid Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J. Nucl. Cardiol. Off. Publ. Am. Soc. Nucl. Cardiol. 2021, 28, 2335–2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hamzaraj, K.; Kammerlander, A.; Gyöngyösi, M.; Frey, B.; Distelmaier, K.; Graf, S. Patient Selection and Clinical Indication for Chronic Total Occlusion Revascularization-A Workflow Focusing on Non-Invasive Cardiac Imaging. Life 2022, 13, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ziadi, M.C.; Dekemp, R.A.; Williams, K.A.; Guo, A.; Chow, B.J.W.; Renaud, J.M.; Ruddy, T.D.; Sarveswaran, N.; Tee, R.E.; Beanlands, R.S.B. 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, 740–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Murthy, V.L.; Naya, M.; Foster, C.R.; Hainer, J.; Gaber, M.; Di Carli, G.; Blankstein, R.; Dorbala, S.; Sitek, A.; Pencina, M.J.; et al. Improved Cardiac Risk Assessment with Noninvasive Measures of Coronary Flow Reserve. Circulation 2011, 124, 2215–2224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gould, K.L.; Kitkungvan, D.; Johnson, N.P.; Nguyen, T.; Kirkeeide, R.; Bui, L.; Patel, M.B.; Roby, A.E.; Madjid, M.; Zhu, H.; et al. Mortality Prediction by Quantitative PET Perfusion Expressed as Coronary Flow Capacity with and without Revascularization. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2021, 14, 1020–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Singh, A.; Kwiecinski, J.; Miller, R.J.H.; Otaki, Y.; Kavanagh, P.B.; Van Kriekinge, S.D.; Parekh, T.; Gransar, H.; Pieszko, K.; Killekar, A.; et al. Deep Learning for Explainable Estimation of Mortality Risk from Myocardial Positron Emission Tomography Images. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2022, 15, e014526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Singh, A.; Miller, R.J.H.; Otaki, Y.; Kavanagh, P.; Hauser, M.T.; Tzolos, E.; Kwiecinski, J.; Van Kriekinge, S.; Wei, C.-C.; Sharir, T.; et al. Direct Risk Assessment from Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Using Explainable Deep Learning. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2023, 16, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Auletta, S.; Varani, M.; Horvat, R.; Galli, F.; Signore, A.; Hess, S. PET Radiopharmaceuticals for Specific Bacteria Imaging: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Habib, G.; Lancellotti, P.; Antunes, M.J.; Bongiorni, M.G.; Casalta, J.-P.; Del Zotti, F.; Dulgheru, R.; El Khoury, G.; Erba, P.A.; Iung, B.; et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the Management of Infective Endocarditis: The Task Force for the Management of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur. Heart J. 2015, 36, 3075–3128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Anton-Vazquez, V.; Cannata, A.; Amin-Youssef, G.; Watson, S.; Fife, A.; Mulholland, N.; Gunning, M.; Papachristidis, A.; MacCarthy, P.; Baghai, M.; et al. Diagnostic Value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Infective Endocarditis. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2022, 111, 673–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hammond-Haley, M.; Hartley, A.; Al-Khayatt, B.M.; Delago, A.J.; Ghajar, A.; Ojha, U.; Marshall, D.C.; Salciccioli, J.D.; Prendergast, B.D.; Shalhoub, J. Trends in the Incidence and Mortality of Infective Endocarditis in High-Income Countries between 1990 and 2019. Int. J. Cardiol. 2023, 371, 441–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rajani, R.; Klein, J.L. Infective Endocarditis: A Contemporary Update. Clin. Med. 2020, 20, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nappi, F.; Martuscelli, G.; Bellomo, F.; Avtaar Singh, S.S.; Moon, M.R. Infective Endocarditis in High-Income Countries. Metabolites 2022, 12, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lerche, C.J.; Schwartz, F.; Theut, M.; Fosbøl, E.L.; Iversen, K.; Bundgaard, H.; Høiby, N.; Moser, C. Anti-Biofilm Approach in Infective Endocarditis Exposes New Treatment Strategies for Improved Outcome. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 9, 643335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Selton-Suty, C.; Célard, M.; Le Moing, V.; Doco-Lecompte, T.; Chirouze, C.; Iung, B.; Strady, C.; Revest, M.; Vandenesch, F.; Bouvet, A.; et al. Preeminence of Staphylococcus Aureus in Infective Endocarditis: A 1-Year Population-Based Survey. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2012, 54, 1230–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Werdan, K.; Dietz, S.; Löffler, B.; Niemann, S.; Bushnaq, H.; Silber, R.-E.; Peters, G.; Müller-Werdan, U. Mechanisms of Infective Endocarditis: Pathogen–Host Interaction and Risk States. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2014, 11, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Chambers, J.B.; Sandoe, J. British Heart Valve Society Infective Endocarditis and Antibiotic Prophylaxis. Lancet 2015, 386, 527–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Salomäki, S.P.; Saraste, A.; Kemppainen, J.; Bax, J.J.; Knuuti, J.; Nuutila, P.; Seppänen, M.; Roivainen, A.; Airaksinen, J.; Pirilä, L.; et al. 18F-FDG Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Infective Endocarditis. J. Nucl. Cardiol. Off. Publ. Am. Soc. Nucl. Cardiol. 2017, 24, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Eales, K.L.; Hollinshead, K.E.R.; Tennant, D.A. Hypoxia and Metabolic Adaptation of Cancer Cells. Oncogenesis 2016, 5, e190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mochizuki, T.; Tsukamoto, E.; Kuge, Y.; Kanegae, K.; Zhao, S.; Hikosaka, K.; Hosokawa, M.; Kohanawa, M.; Tamaki, N. FDG Uptake and Glucose Transporter Subtype Expressions in Experimental Tumor and Inflammation Models. J. Nucl. Med. 2001, 42, 1551–1555. [Google Scholar]
  59. Freemerman, A.J.; Johnson, A.R.; Sacks, G.N.; Milner, J.J.; Kirk, E.L.; Troester, M.A.; Macintyre, A.N.; Goraksha-Hicks, P.; Rathmell, J.C.; Makowski, L. Metabolic Reprogramming of Macrophages. J. Biol. Chem. 2014, 289, 7884–7896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wang, Z.G.; Yu, M.M.; Han, Y.; Wu, F.Y.; Yang, G.J.; Li, D.C.; Liu, S.M. Correlation of Glut-1 and Glut-3 Expression with F-18 FDG Uptake in Pulmonary Inflammatory Lesions. Medicine 2016, 95, e5462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yamada, S.; Kubota, K.; Kubota, R.; Ido, T.; Tamahashi, N. High Accumulation of Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose in Turpentine-Induced Inflammatory Tissue. J. Nucl. Med. Off. Publ. Soc. Nucl. Med. 1995, 36, 1301–1306. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kubota, R.; Yamada, S.; Kubota, K.; Ishiwata, K.; Tamahashi, N.; Ido, T. Intratumoral Distribution of Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose in Vivo: High Accumulation in Macrophages and Granulation Tissues Studied by Microautoradiography. J. Nucl. Med. 2020, 61, 132S–139S. [Google Scholar]
  63. Habib, G.; Erba, P.A.; Iung, B.; Donal, E.; Cosyns, B.; Laroche, C.; Popescu, B.A.; Prendergast, B.; Tornos, P.; Sadeghpour, A.; et al. Clinical Presentation, Aetiology and Outcome of Infective Endocarditis. Results of the ESC-EORP EURO-ENDO (European Infective Endocarditis) Registry: A Prospective Cohort Study. Eur. Heart J. 2019, 40, 3222–3232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kamani, C.H.; Allenbach, G.; Jreige, M.; Pavon, A.G.; Meyer, M.; Testart, N.; Firsova, M.; Fernandes Vieira, V.; Boughdad, S.; Nicod Lalonde, M.; et al. Diagnostic Performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Native Valve Endocarditis: Systematic Review and Bivariate Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Philip, M.; Delcourt, S.; Mancini, J.; Tessonnier, L.; Cammilleri, S.; Arregle, F.; Martel, H.; Oliver, L.; Hubert, S.; Renard, S.; et al. 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for the Diagnosis of Native Valve Infective Endocarditis: A Prospective Study. Arch. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2021, 114, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. de Camargo, R.A.; Sommer Bitencourt, M.; Meneghetti, J.C.; Soares, J.; Gonçalves, L.F.T.; Buchpiguel, C.A.; Paixão, M.R.; Felicio, M.F.; de Matos Soeiro, A.; Varejão Strabelli, T.M.; et al. The Role of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Left-Sided Endocarditis: Native vs. Prosthetic Valves Endocarditis. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2020, 70, 583–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kouijzer, I.J.E.; Vos, F.J.; Janssen, M.J.R.; van Dijk, A.P.J.; Oyen, W.J.G.; Bleeker-Rovers, C.P. The Value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Diagnosing Infectious Endocarditis. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2013, 40, 1102–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Duval, X.; Le Moing, V.; Tubiana, S.; Esposito-Farèse, M.; Ilic-Habensus, E.; Leclercq, F.; Bourdon, A.; Goehringer, F.; Selton-Suty, C.; Chevalier, E.; et al. Impact of Systematic Whole-Body 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT on the Management of Patients Suspected of Infective Endocarditis: The Prospective Multicenter TEPvENDO Study. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2021, 73, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Swart, L.E.; Gomes, A.; Scholtens, A.M.; Sinha, B.; Tanis, W.; Lam, M.G.E.H.; van der Vlugt, M.J.; Streukens, S.A.F.; Aarntzen, E.H.J.G.; Bucerius, J.; et al. Improving the Diagnostic Performance of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron-Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Prosthetic Heart Valve Endocarditis. Circulation 2018, 138, 1412–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Slart, R.H.J.A.; Glaudemans, A.W.J.M.; Gheysens, O.; Lubberink, M.; Kero, T.; Dweck, M.R.; Habib, G.; Gaemperli, O.; Saraste, A.; Gimelli, A.; et al. Procedural Recommendations of Cardiac PET/CT Imaging: Standardization in Inflammatory-, Infective-, Infiltrative-, and Innervation- (4Is) Related Cardiovascular Diseases: A Joint Collaboration of the EACVI and the EANM: Summary. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2020, 21, 1320–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Scholtens, A.M.; Swart, L.E.; Verberne, H.J.; Budde, R.P.J.; Lam, M.G.E.H. Dual-Time-Point FDG PET/CT Imaging in Prosthetic Heart Valve Endocarditis. J. Nucl. Cardiol. Off. Publ. Am. Soc. Nucl. Cardiol. 2018, 25, 1960–1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. San, S.; Ravis, E.; Tessonier, L.; Philip, M.; Cammilleri, S.; Lavagna, F.; Norscini, G.; Arregle, F.; Martel, H.; Oliver, L.; et al. Prognostic Value of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Infective Endocarditis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 74, 1031–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ruiz-Zafra, J.; Rodríguez-Fernández, A.; Sánchez-Palencia, A.; Cueto, A. Surgical Adhesive May Cause False Positives in Integrated Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography after Lung Cancer Resection. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2013, 43, 1251–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Blomström-Lundqvist, C.; Traykov, V.; Erba, P.A.; Burri, H.; Nielsen, J.C.; Bongiorni, M.G.; Poole, J.; Boriani, G.; Costa, R.; Deharo, J.-C.; et al. European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) International Consensus Document on How to Prevent, Diagnose, and Treat Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections—Endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in Collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2020, 22, 515–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dilsizian, V. Highlights from the Updated Joint ASNC/SNMMI PET Myocardial Perfusion and Metabolism Clinical Imaging Guidelines. J. Nucl. Med. 2016, 57, 1327–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Narula, J.; Nakano, M.; Virmani, R.; Kolodgie, F.D.; Petersen, R.; Newcomb, R.; Malik, S.; Fuster, V.; Finn, A.V. Histopathologic Characteristics of Atherosclerotic Coronary Disease and Implications of the Findings for the Invasive and Noninvasive Detection of Vulnerable Plaques. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013, 61, 1041–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Virmani, R.; Kolodgie, F.D.; Burke, A.P.; Farb, A.; Schwartz, S.M. Lessons from Sudden Coronary Death: A Comprehensive Morphological Classification Scheme for Atherosclerotic Lesions. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2000, 20, 1262–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. 78. Kramer, M.C.; Rittersma, S.Z.; de Winter, R.J.; Ladich, E.R.; Fowler, D.R.; Liang, Y.H.; Kutys, R.; Carter-Monroe, N.; Kolodg-ie, F.D.; van der Wal, A.C.; et al. Relationship of thrombus healing to underlying plaque morphology in sudden coronary death. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2010, 55, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Creager, M.D.; Hohl, T.; Hutcheson, J.D.; Moss, A.J.; Schlotter, F.; Blaser, M.C.; Park, M.-A.; Lee, L.H.; Singh, S.A.; Alcaide-Corral, C.J.; et al. 18F-Fluoride Signal Amplification Identifies Microcalcifications Associated With Atherosclerotic Plaque Instability in Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Images. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2019, 12, e007835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tzolos, E.; Dweck, M.R. 18F-Sodium Fluoride (18F-NaF) for Imaging Microcalcification Activity in the Cardiovascular System. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2020, 40, 1620–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Joshi, N.V.; Vesey, A.T.; Williams, M.C.; Shah, A.S.V.; Calvert, P.A.; Craighead, F.H.M.; Yeoh, S.E.; Wallace, W.; Salter, D.; Fletcher, A.M.; et al. 18F-Fluoride Positron Emission Tomography for Identification of Ruptured and High-Risk Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaques: A Prospective Clinical Trial. Lancet 2014, 383, 705–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lassen, M.L.; Kwiecinski, J.; Cadet, S.; Dey, D.; Wang, C.; Dweck, M.R.; Berman, D.S.; Germano, G.; Newby, D.E.; Slomka, P.J. Data-Driven Gross Patient Motion Detection and Compensation: Implications for Coronary 18F-NaF PET Imaging. J. Nucl. Med. Off. Publ. Soc. Nucl. Med. 2019, 60, 830–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lassen, M.L.; Kwiecinski, J.; Slomka, P.J. Gating Approaches in Cardiac PET Imaging. PET Clin. 2019, 14, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Tzolos, E.; Lassen, M.L.; Pan, T.; Kwiecinski, J.; Cadet, S.; Dey, D.; Dweck, M.R.; Newby, D.E.; Berman, D.; Slomka, P. Respiration-Averaged CT versus Standard CT Attenuation Map for Correction of 18F-Sodium Fluoride Uptake in Coronary Atherosclerotic Lesions on Hybrid PET/CT. J. Nucl. Cardiol. Off. Publ. Am. Soc. Nucl. Cardiol. 2022, 29, 430–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Lassen, M.L.; Kwiecinski, J.; Dey, D.; Cadet, S.; Germano, G.; Berman, D.S.; Adamson, P.D.; Moss, A.J.; Dweck, M.R.; Newby, D.E.; et al. Triple-Gated Motion and Blood Pool Clearance Corrections Improve Reproducibility of Coronary 18F-NaF PET. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2019, 46, 2610–2620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Doris, M.K.; Otaki, Y.; Krishnan, S.K.; Kwiecinski, J.; Rubeaux, M.; Alessio, A.; Pan, T.; Cadet, S.; Dey, D.; Dweck, M.R.; et al. Optimization of Reconstruction and Quantification of Motion-Corrected Coronary PET-CT. J. Nucl. Cardiol. Off. Publ. Am. Soc. Nucl. Cardiol. 2020, 27, 494–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kwiecinski, J.; Adamson, P.D.; Lassen, M.L.; Doris, M.K.; Moss, A.J.; Cadet, S.; Jansen, M.A.; Dey, D.; Lee, S.-E.; Yun, M.; et al. Feasibility of Coronary 18F-Sodium Fluoride PET Assessment with the Utilization of Previously Acquired CT Angiography. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2018, 11, e008325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kwiecinski, J.; Berman, D.S.; Lee, S.-E.; Dey, D.; Cadet, S.; Lassen, M.L.; Germano, G.; Jansen, M.A.; Dweck, M.R.; Newby, D.E.; et al. Three-Hour Delayed Imaging Improves Assessment of Coronary 18F-Sodium Fluoride PET. J. Nucl. Med. Off. Publ. Soc. Nucl. Med. 2019, 60, 530–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kwiecinski, J.; Cadet, S.; Daghem, M.; Lassen, M.L.; Dey, D.; Dweck, M.R.; Berman, D.S.; Newby, D.E.; Slomka, P.J. Whole-Vessel Coronary 18F-Sodium Fluoride PET for Assessment of the Global Coronary Microcalcification Burden. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2020, 47, 1736–1745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Tzolos, E.; Kwiecinski, J.; Lassen, M.L.; Cadet, S.; Adamson, P.D.; Moss, A.J.; Joshi, N.; Williams, M.C.; van Beek, E.J.R.; Dey, D.; et al. Observer Repeatability and Interscan Reproducibility of 18F-Sodium Fluoride Coronary Microcalcification Activity. J. Nucl. Cardiol. Off. Publ. Am. Soc. Nucl. Cardiol. 2022, 29, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Massera, D.; Doris, M.K.; Cadet, S.; Kwiecinski, J.; Pawade, T.A.; Peeters, F.E.C.M.; Dey, D.; Newby, D.E.; Dweck, M.R.; Slomka, P.J. Analytical Quantification of Aortic Valve 18F-Sodium Fluoride PET Uptake. J. Nucl. Cardiol. Off. Publ. Am. Soc. Nucl. Cardiol. 2020, 27, 962–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Singh, A.; Kwiecinski, J.; Cadet, S.; Killekar, A.; Tzolos, E.; Williams, M.C.; Dweck, M.R.; Newby, D.E.; Dey, D.; Slomka, P.J. Automated Nonlinear Registration of Coronary PET to CT Angiography Using Pseudo-CT Generated from PET with Generative Adversarial Networks. J. Nucl. Cardiol. Off. Publ. Am. Soc. Nucl. Cardiol. 2023, 30, 604–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kwiecinski, J.; Tzolos, E.; Fletcher, A.J.; Nash, J.; Meah, M.N.; Cadet, S.; Adamson, P.D.; Grodecki, K.; Joshi, N.; Williams, M.C.; et al. Bypass Grafting and Native Coronary Artery Disease Activity. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2022, 15, 875–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Lee, J.M.; Bang, J.-I.; Koo, B.-K.; Hwang, D.; Park, J.; Zhang, J.; Yaliang, T.; Suh, M.; Paeng, J.C.; Shiono, Y.; et al. Clinical Relevance of 18F-Sodium Fluoride Positron-Emission Tomography in Noninvasive Identification of High-Risk Plaque in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2017, 10, e006704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Kwiecinski, J.; Dey, D.; Cadet, S.; Lee, S.-E.; Tamarappoo, B.; Otaki, Y.; Huynh, P.T.; Friedman, J.D.; Dweck, M.R.; Newby, D.E.; et al. Predictors of 18F-Sodium Fluoride Uptake in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Adverse Plaque Features on Computed Tomography Angiography. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2020, 21, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Kwiecinski, J.; Dey, D.; Cadet, S.; Lee, S.-E.; Otaki, Y.; Huynh, P.T.; Doris, M.K.; Eisenberg, E.; Yun, M.; Jansen, M.A.; et al. Peri-Coronary Adipose Tissue Density Is Associated with 18F-Sodium Fluoride Coronary Uptake in Stable Patients with High-Risk Plaques. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2019, 12, 2000–2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Tzolos, E.; Williams, M.C.; McElhinney, P.; Lin, A.; Grodecki, K.; Flores Tomasino, G.; Cadet, S.; Kwiecinski, J.; Doris, M.; Adamson, P.D.; et al. Pericoronary Adipose Tissue Attenuation, Low-Attenuation Plaque Burden, and 5-Year Risk of Myocardial Infarction. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2022, 15, 1078–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Kwiecinski, J.; Tzolos, E.; Adamson, P.D.; Cadet, S.; Moss, A.J.; Joshi, N.; Williams, M.C.; van Beek, E.J.R.; Dey, D.; Berman, D.S.; et al. Coronary 18F-Sodium Fluoride Uptake Predicts Outcomes in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020, 75, 3061–3074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Fletcher, A.J.; Tew, Y.Y.; Tzolos, E.; Joshi, S.S.; Kaczynski, J.; Nash, J.; Debono, S.; Lembo, M.; Kwiecinski, J.; Bing, R.; et al. Thoracic Aortic 18F-Sodium Fluoride Activity and Ischemic Stroke in Patients with Established Cardiovascular Disease. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2022, 15, 1274–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kitagawa, T.; Yamamoto, H.; Nakamoto, Y.; Sasaki, K.; Toshimitsu, S.; Tatsugami, F.; Awai, K.; Hirokawa, Y.; Kihara, Y. Predictive Value of 18F-Sodium Fluoride Positron Emission Tomography in Detecting High-Risk Coronary Artery Disease in Combination with Computed Tomography. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2018, 7, e010224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kwiecinski, J.; Tzolos, E.; Meah, M.N.; Cadet, S.; Adamson, P.D.; Grodecki, K.; Joshi, N.V.; Moss, A.J.; Williams, M.C.; van Beek, E.J.R.; et al. Machine Learning with 18F-Sodium Fluoride PET and Quantitative Plaque Analysis on CT Angiography for the Future Risk of Myocardial Infarction. J. Nucl. Med. Off. Publ. Soc. Nucl. Med. 2022, 63, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Chowdhury, M.M.; Tarkin, J.M.; Albaghdadi, M.S.; Evans, N.R.; Le, E.P.V.; Berrett, T.B.; Sadat, U.; Joshi, F.R.; Warburton, E.A.; Buscombe, J.R.; et al. Vascular Positron Emission Tomography and Restenosis in Symptomatic Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Prospective Clinical Study. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2020, 13, 1008–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Fletcher, A.J.; Lembo, M.; Kwiecinski, J.; Syed, M.B.J.; Nash, J.; Tzolos, E.; Bing, R.; Cadet, S.; MacNaught, G.; van Beek, E.J.R.; et al. Quantifying Microcalcification Activity in the Thoracic Aorta. J. Nucl. Cardiol. Off. Publ. Am. Soc. Nucl. Cardiol. 2022, 29, 1372–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Forsythe, R.O.; Dweck, M.R.; McBride, O.M.B.; Vesey, A.T.; Semple, S.I.; Shah, A.S.V.; Adamson, P.D.; Wallace, W.A.; Kaczynski, J.; Ho, W.; et al. 18F-Sodium Fluoride Uptake in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: The SoFIA3 Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2018, 71, 513–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Tzolos, E.; Kwiecinski, J.; Berman, D.; Slomka, P.; Newby, D.E.; Dweck, M.R. Latest Advances in Multimodality Imaging of Aortic Stenosis. J. Nucl. Med. Off. Publ. Soc. Nucl. Med. 2022, 63, 353–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Cartlidge, T.R.G.; Doris, M.K.; Sellers, S.L.; Pawade, T.A.; White, A.C.; Pessotto, R.; Kwiecinski, J.; Fletcher, A.; Alcaide, C.; Lucatelli, C.; et al. Detection and Prediction of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Degeneration. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 73, 1107–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Kwiecinski, J.; Tzolos, E.; Cartlidge, T.R.G.; Fletcher, A.; Doris, M.K.; Bing, R.; Tarkin, J.M.; Seidman, M.A.; Gulsin, G.S.; Cruden, N.L.; et al. Native Aortic Valve Disease Progression and Bioprosthetic Valve Degeneration in Patients with Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Circulation 2021, 144, 1396–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Pastorino, S.; Baldassari, S.; Ailuno, G.; Zuccari, G.; Drava, G.; Petretto, A.; Cossu, V.; Marini, C.; Alfei, S.; Florio, T.; et al. Two Novel PET Radiopharmaceuticals for Endothelial Vascular Cell Adhesion Molecule-1 (VCAM-1) Targeting. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. De Dominicis, C.; Perrotta, P.; Dall’Angelo, S.; Wyffels, L.; Staelens, S.; De Meyer, G.R.Y.; Zanda, M. [18F]ZCDD083: A PFKFB3-Targeted PET Tracer for Atherosclerotic Plaque Imaging. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2020, 11, 933–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Renick, P.J.; Mulgaonkar, A.; Co, C.M.; Wu, C.Y.; Zhou, N.; Velazquez, A.; Pennington, J.; Sherwood, A.; Dong, H.; Castellino, L.; et al. Imaging of Actively Proliferating Bacterial Infections by Targeting the Bacterial Metabolic Footprint with d-[5-11C]-Glutamine. ACS Infect Dis. 2021, 7, 347–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Neumann, K.D.; Villanueva-Meyer, J.E.; Mutch, C.A.; Flavell, R.R.; Blecha, J.E.; Kwak, T.; Sriram, R.; VanBrocklin, H.F.; Rosenberg, O.S.; Ohliger, M.A.; et al. Imaging Active Infection in vivo Using D-Amino Acid Derived PET Radiotracers. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 7903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Andrews, J.P.M.; MacNaught, G.; Moss, A.J.; Doris, M.K.; Pawade, T.; Adamson, P.D.; van Beek, E.J.R.; Lucatelli, C.; Lassen, M.L.; Robson, P.M.; et al. Cardiovascular 18F-fluoride positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging: A comparison study. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2021, 28, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 13 01791 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the basic principles governing PET. A positive-beta decay: interaction of positron with electron followed by an annihilation process with the release of two 511 keV gamma photons detected by the PET scanner detector ring.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the basic principles governing PET. A positive-beta decay: interaction of positron with electron followed by an annihilation process with the release of two 511 keV gamma photons detected by the PET scanner detector ring.
Diagnostics 13 01791 g001
Diagnostics 13 01791 g002 550
Figure 2. Myocardial viability imaging: Mismatch pattern, viable hibernated myocardium. (A) Myocardial perfusion imaging with MIBI-Tc99m SPECT: heart scans showing lack of tracer uptake in the apical region and apical segments of the anterior wall (left anterior descending coronary artery territory). (B) 18FDG viability PET. 18FDG uptake is visible in the area of the perfusion deficit, ruling out scarring and confirming viability in this region.
Figure 2. Myocardial viability imaging: Mismatch pattern, viable hibernated myocardium. (A) Myocardial perfusion imaging with MIBI-Tc99m SPECT: heart scans showing lack of tracer uptake in the apical region and apical segments of the anterior wall (left anterior descending coronary artery territory). (B) 18FDG viability PET. 18FDG uptake is visible in the area of the perfusion deficit, ruling out scarring and confirming viability in this region.
Diagnostics 13 01791 g002
Diagnostics 13 01791 g003 550
Figure 3. Myocardial viability imaging: Match pattern, non-viable scarring. (A) Myocardial perfusion imaging with MIBI-Tc99m SPECT: heart scans showing lack of tracer uptake in the apical region of the left ventricle (LAD territory). (B) 18FDG viability PET. 18FDG uptake is absent in the area of the perfusion defect, confirming myocardial scarring in this region.
Figure 3. Myocardial viability imaging: Match pattern, non-viable scarring. (A) Myocardial perfusion imaging with MIBI-Tc99m SPECT: heart scans showing lack of tracer uptake in the apical region of the left ventricle (LAD territory). (B) 18FDG viability PET. 18FDG uptake is absent in the area of the perfusion defect, confirming myocardial scarring in this region.
Diagnostics 13 01791 g003
Diagnostics 13 01791 g004 550
Figure 4. Infective Endocarditis in a patient with a cardiac device-related infective endocarditis. Axial scans at the level of the pacing leads: Infection focus in the right atrial leads. (A) Fused 18FDG PET and CT with tracer uptake in right atrium. (B) 18FDG PET attenuation-corrected scan. (C) 18FDG PET attenuation non-corrected scan showing uptake presence matching attenuation-corrected scan.
Figure 4. Infective Endocarditis in a patient with a cardiac device-related infective endocarditis. Axial scans at the level of the pacing leads: Infection focus in the right atrial leads. (A) Fused 18FDG PET and CT with tracer uptake in right atrium. (B) 18FDG PET attenuation-corrected scan. (C) 18FDG PET attenuation non-corrected scan showing uptake presence matching attenuation-corrected scan.
Diagnostics 13 01791 g004
Diagnostics 13 01791 g005 550
Figure 5. Imaging of atherosclerotic disease activity. 18F-sodium fluoride coronary PET imaging for imaging the coronary microcalcification activity (CMA) and risk stratification in patients with established coronary artery disease. Reprinted from JACC, Vol 75, Issue 24, Kwiecinski et al., Coronary 18F-sodium fluoride uptake predicts outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease, Pages 3061–3074, 2020, with permissions from Elsevier [98].
Figure 5. Imaging of atherosclerotic disease activity. 18F-sodium fluoride coronary PET imaging for imaging the coronary microcalcification activity (CMA) and risk stratification in patients with established coronary artery disease. Reprinted from JACC, Vol 75, Issue 24, Kwiecinski et al., Coronary 18F-sodium fluoride uptake predicts outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease, Pages 3061–3074, 2020, with permissions from Elsevier [98].
Diagnostics 13 01791 g005
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of PET radionuclides.
Table 1. Characteristics of PET radionuclides.
RadionuclideHalf-LifeSource
15O2 minCyclotron
13N10 minCyclotron
82Rb 1.3 minGenerator
18F 110 minCyclotron
68Ga68 minGenerator
11C20 minCyclotron
64Cu12.8 hCyclotron
89Zr78 hCyclotron
Table
Table 2. PET radiotracers for myocardial perfusion imaging.
Table 2. PET radiotracers for myocardial perfusion imaging.
TracerIsotopeHalf-Life
(min)		ProductionFirst-Pass Extraction Fraction (%)Uptake MechanismAvailabilityStress ModalityMBF QuantificationInjected Activity (mCi)Effective Dose (mSv)
15O-Water (H215O)15O2Cyclotron~100Free diffusion+Pharmacologicyes401.7
13N-ammonia (13NH3)13N9.96Cyclotron~80Free diffusion and metabolic trapping (Na+/K+ ATPase)+++Exercise or pharmacologic
With exercise, only static images available		with pharmacologic stress only201.5
82Rubidium chloride (82RbCl)82Rb1.3Generator~65Metabolic trapping (Na+/K+ ATPase)++Pharmacologicyes601.4
MBF—myocardial blood flow, availability graded +/++/+++.
Table
Table 3. Current indications of PET in cardiovascular diseases and possible future applications.
Table 3. Current indications of PET in cardiovascular diseases and possible future applications.
ApplicationTracerMechanismAvailability
Current PET Applications
Myocardial
perfusion		15O-Water (H215O)Free diffusion+
13N-ammonia (13NH3)Free diffusion and metabolic trapping+++
82Rubidium chloride (82RbCl) Metabolic trapping++
18F-flurpiridazMitochondrial complex bindingPhase III clinical trial (NCT01347710)
Viability18F-FDGGlucose metabolism, GLUT4/GLUT1+++
Inflammation, e.g., vasculitis18F-FDGGlucose metabolism
Activated macropahes, neutrophils, CD4+leukocytes		+++
Infective endocarditis, implantable device infections18F-FDGGlucose metabolism
Activated macrophages, neutrophils, CD4+leukocytes		+++
Cardiac malignancies18F-FDGGlucose metabolism
Increased uptake by cancer cells		+++
Sarcoidosis18F-FDGGlucose metabolism
Activated macrophages, neutrophils, CD4+leukocytes		+++
Future PET applications
Sarcoidosis18F-fluoromisonidazole (FMISO)Tissue hypoxiaResearch
Atherosclerosis imaging18F-NaFActive calcification, high-risk plaque++
Research
Heart failure 68Ga or 18F-fibroblast activation protein inhibitor (FAPI)Marker of activated fibroblasts
Cardiac remodeling/injury 		Research
Heart failure 11C-hydroxyephedrine (HED)
[18F]flubrobenguane		Cardiac sympathetic innervation Research
Atherosclerosis imaging68Ga-DOTA-conjugated peptides: DOTATATE, DOTATOC, DOTANOCSSTR2
High-risk lesions
Activated macrophages—marker of atherosclerotic inflammation		Research
Atherosclerosis imaging64Cu-DOTATATEResearch
Atherosclerosis imaging18F-fluoromethylcholineActivated macrophages—marker of atherosclerotic inflammationResearch
Atherosclerosis imaging68Ga-Pentixafor CXCR4Research
Atherosclerosis imaging68Ga–MacroP Endothelial activation
VCAM-1
Promising target for early atheroma detection		Research
Atherosclerosis imagingNAMP–avidin–68Ga-BisDOTAEndothelial activation
VCAM-1
Promising target for early atheroma detection		Research
Atherosclerosis imaging18F-fluorothymidine (FLT)Cell proliferation, immune activationResearch
Cardiac amyloidosis18F-florbetaben, 18F-florbetapir, 18F-flutemetamol,11C—Pittsburg Compound-B (PiB)Amyloid depositsResearch
Availability graded +/++/+++.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Blach, A.; Kwiecinski, J. The Role of Positron Emission Tomography in Advancing the Understanding of the Pathogenesis of Heart and Vascular Diseases. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 1791. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13101791

AMA Style

Blach A, Kwiecinski J. The Role of Positron Emission Tomography in Advancing the Understanding of the Pathogenesis of Heart and Vascular Diseases. Diagnostics. 2023; 13(10):1791. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13101791

Chicago/Turabian Style

Blach, Anna, and Jacek Kwiecinski. 2023. "The Role of Positron Emission Tomography in Advancing the Understanding of the Pathogenesis of Heart and Vascular Diseases" Diagnostics 13, no. 10: 1791. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13101791

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop