Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Recent advances in cardiac positron emission tomography for quantitative perfusion analyses and molecular imaging

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) has been used to noninvasively evaluate myocardial perfusion and metabolism. For clinical assessments of myocardial perfusion, the quantitative capability of PET permits precise assessments of ischemia and microcirculatory dysfunction, playing an important role in patient management and outcome analyses. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET has recently been used to identify active cardiovascular lesions such as cardiac sarcoidosis, endocarditis, and aortitis. This may hold promise for the early and accurate diagnosis of such fatal diseases, as well as for patient management. This review covers new and clinical roles of cardiac PET in treatment strategies and patient outcomes.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Doherty JU, Kort S, Mehran R, Schoenhagen P, Soman P, Rating Panel M, et al. ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2019 Appropriate Use Criteria for Multimodality Imaging in the Assessment of Cardiac Structure and Function in Nonvalvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Nucl Cardiol 2019;26(4):1392-413.

  2. Bax JJ, Di Carli M, Narula J, Delgado V. Multimodality imaging in ischaemic heart failure. Lancet. 2019;393(10175):1056–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Manabe O, Kikuchi T, Scholte A, El Mahdiui M, Nishii R, Zhang MR, et al. Radiopharmaceutical tracers for cardiac imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018;25(4):1204–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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(18):1639–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bengel FM, Higuchi T, Javadi MS, Lautamaki R. Cardiac positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(1):1–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schindler TH, Dilsizian V. PET-determined hyperemic myocardial blood flow: Further progress to clinical application. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(14):1476–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yoshinaga K, Tomiyama Y, Suzuki E, Tamaki N. Myocardial blood flow quantification using positron-emission tomography: analysis and practice in the clinical setting. Circ J. 2013;77(7):1662–711.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(4):274–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dorbala S, Di Carli MF. Cardiac PET perfusion: prognosis, risk stratification, and clinical management. Semin Nucl Med. 2014;44(5):344–57.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Yoshinaga K, Manabe O, Tamaki N. Absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018;25(2):635–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Hainer J, Gaber M, Di Carli G, et al. Improved cardiac risk assessment with noninvasive measures of coronary flow reserve. Circulation. 2011;124(20):2215–24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Taqueti VR, Hachamovitch R, Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Hainer J, et al. Global coronary flow reserve is associated with adverse cardiovascular events independently of luminal angiographic severity and modifies the effect of early revascularization. Circulation. 2015;131(1):19–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Naya M, Tamaki N, Tsutsui H. Coronary flow reserve estimated by positron emission tomography to diagnose significant coronary artery disease and predict cardiac events. Circ J. 2015;79(1):15–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Aikawa T, Naya M, Obara M, Manabe O, Magota K, Koyanagawa K, et al. Effects of coronary revascularization on global coronary flow reserve in stable coronary artery disease. Cardiovasc Res. 2019;115(1):119–29.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kikuchi Y, Oyama-Manabe N, Naya M, Manabe O, Tomiyama Y, Sasaki T, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow using dynamic 320-row multi-detector CT as compared with (1)(5)O-H(2)O PET. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(7):1547–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tomiyama Y, Manabe O, Oyama-Manabe N, Naya M, Sugimori H, Hirata K, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with dynamic perfusion 3.0 Tesla MRI: validation with (15) O-water PET. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42(3):754–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ho KT, Ong HY, Tan G, Yong QW. Dynamic CT myocardial perfusion measurements of resting and hyperaemic blood flow in low-risk subjects with 128-slice dual-source CT. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16(3):300–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nkoulou R, Fuchs TA, Pazhenkottil AP, Kuest SM, Ghadri JR, Stehli J, et al. Absolute myocardial blood flow and flow reserve assessed by gated SPECT with cadmium-zinc-telluride detectors using 99mTc-tetrofosmin: head-to-head comparison with 13N-ammonia PET. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(12):1887–922.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Oyama-Manabe N, Manabe O, Naya M, Kudo K, Tamaki N. Quantitative evaluation of myocardial ischemia with dynamic perfusion CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2019;5(1):79–83.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nagara Tamaki T, Matsushima S, Yoshinaga K. Perspectives of quantitative assessment of myocardial blood flow. Clin Transl Imaging. 2018;6:321–7.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Marinescu MA, Loffler AI, Ouellette M, Smith L, Kramer CM, Bourque JM. Coronary microvascular dysfunction, microvascular angina, and treatment strategies. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(2):210–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Zagatina A, Zhuravskaya N. The additive prognostic value of coronary flow velocity reserve during exercise echocardiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;18(10):1179–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams KA, Guo A, Chow BJ, Renaud JM, et al. Impaired myocardial flow reserve on rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging predicts adverse outcomes in patients assessed for myocardial ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(7):740–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Naya M, Murthy VL, Taqueti VR, Foster CR, Klein J, Garber M, et al. Preserved coronary flow reserve effectively excludes high-risk coronary artery disease on angiography. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(2):248–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Camici PG, Crea F. Coronary microvascular dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(8):830–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. De Bruyne B, Sarma J. Fractional flow reserve: a review: invasive imaging. Heart. 2008;94(7):949–59.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, Boersma E, Bech JW, van’t Veer M, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49(21):2105–11.

  31. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van’t Veer M, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(3):213–24.

  32. van Nunen LX, Zimmermann FM, Tonino PA, Barbato E, Baumbach A, Engstrom T, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386(10006):1853–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. De Bruyne B, Baudhuin T, Melin JA, Pijls NH, Sys SU, Bol A, et al. Coronary flow reserve calculated from pressure measurements in humans. Validation with positron emission tomography. Circulation. 1994;89(3):1013–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Meuwissen M, Chamuleau SA, Siebes M, Schotborgh CE, Koch KT, de Winter RJ, et al. Role of variability in microvascular resistance on fractional flow reserve and coronary blood flow velocity reserve in intermediate coronary lesions. Circulation. 2001;103(2):184–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. van de Hoef TP, van Lavieren MA, Damman P, Delewi R, Piek MA, Chamuleau SA, et al. Physiological basis and long-term clinical outcome of discordance between fractional flow reserve and coronary flow velocity reserve in coronary stenoses of intermediate severity. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(3):301–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Manabe O, Naya M, Tamaki N. Feasibility of PET for the management of coronary artery disease: comparison between CFR and FFR. J Cardiol. 2017;70(2):135–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wilson RF, White CW. Does coronary artery bypass surgery restore normal maximal coronary flow reserve? The effect of diffuse atherosclerosis and focal obstructive lesions. Circulation. 1987;76(3):563–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kosa I, Blasini R, Schneider-Eicke J, Dickfeld T, Neumann FJ, Ziegler S, et al. Early recovery of coronary flow reserve after stent implantation as assessed by positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34(4):1036–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Pizzuto F, Voci P, Mariano E, Puddu PE, Sardella G, Nigri A. Assessment of flow velocity reserve by transthoracic Doppler echocardiography and venous adenosine infusion before and after left anterior descending coronary artery stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38(1):155–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nijjer SS, Petraco R, van de Hoef TP, Sen S, van Lavieren MA, Foale RA, et al. Change in coronary blood flow after percutaneous coronary intervention in relation to baseline lesion physiology: Results of the JUSTIFY-PCI study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(6):e001715.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Taqueti VR, Solomon SD, Shah AM, Desai AS, Groarke JD, Osborne MT, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction and future risk of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(10):840–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Aikawa T, Naya M, Koyanagawa K, Manabe O, Obara M, Magota K, et al. Improved regional myocardial blood flow and flow reserve after coronary revascularization as assessed by serial 15O-water positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;21(1):36–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 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(14):884–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Tamaki N, Yonekura Y, Yamashita K, Saji H, Magata Y, Senda M, et al. Positron emission tomography using fluorine-18 deoxyglucose in evaluation of coronary artery bypass grafting. American J Cardiol. 1989;64(14):860–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Tamaki N, Kawamoto M, Tadamura E, Magata Y, Yonekura Y, Nohara R, et al. Prediction of reversible ischemia after revascularization. Perfusion and metabolic studies with positron emission tomography. Circulation. 1995;91(6):1697–705.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 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(7):1151–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Juneau D, Erthal F, Alzahrani A, Alenazy A, Nery PB, Beanlands RS, et al. Systemic and inflammatory disorders involving the heart: the role of PET imaging. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;60(4):383–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kang SS, Gosselin C, Ren D, Greisler HP. Selective stimulation of endothelial cell proliferation with inhibition of smooth muscle cell proliferation by fibroblast growth factor-1 plus heparin delivered from fibrin glue suspensions. Surgery. 1995;118(2):280–6 (discussion 6-7).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Scholtens AM, Verberne HJ, Budde RP, Lam MG. Additional heparin preadministration improves cardiac glucose metabolism suppression over low-carbohydrate diet alone in (1)(8)F-FDG PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(4):568–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Manabe O, Yoshinaga K, Ohira H, Masuda A, Sato T, Tsujino I, et al. The effects of 18-h fasting with low-carbohydrate diet preparation on suppressed physiological myocardial (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake and possible minimal effects of unfractionated heparin use in patients with suspected cardiac involvement sarcoidosis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23(2):244–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Tam MC, Patel VN, Weinberg RL, Hulten EA, Aaronson KD, Pagani FD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET/CT in suspected LVAD infections: a case series, systematic review, and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;13(5):1191–202.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Doughan AR, Williams BR. Cardiac sarcoidosis. Heart. 2006;92(2):282–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Mehta D, Lubitz SA, Frankel Z, Wisnivesky JP, Einstein AJ, Goldman M, et al. Cardiac involvement in patients with sarcoidosis: diagnostic and prognostic value of outpatient testing. Chest. 2008;133(6):1426–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kumita S, Yoshinaga K, Miyagawa M, Momose M, Kiso K, Kasai T, et al. Recommendations for (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis-2018 update: Japanese Society of Nuclear Cardiology recommendations. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019;26(4):1414–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ishimaru S, Tsujino I, Takei T, Tsukamoto E, Sakaue S, Kamigaki M, et al. Focal uptake on 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography images indicates cardiac involvement of sarcoidosis. Eur Heart J. 2005;26(15):1538–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ohira H, Tsujino I, Yoshinaga K. (1)(8)F-Fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in cardiac sarcoidosis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(9):1773–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Yamagishi H, Shirai N, Takagi M, Yoshiyama M, Akioka K, Takeuchi K, et al. Identification of cardiac sarcoidosis with (13)N-NH(3)/(18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2003;44(7):1030–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Okumura W, Iwasaki T, Toyama T, Iso T, Arai M, Oriuchi N, et al. Usefulness of fasting 18F-FDG PET in identification of cardiac sarcoidosis. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(12):1989–98.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Birnie DH, Sauer WH, Bogun F, Cooper JM, Culver DA, Duvernoy CS, et al. HRS expert consensus statement on the diagnosis and management of arrhythmias associated with cardiac sarcoidosis. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11(7):1305–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ishida Y, Yoshinaga K, Miyagawa M, Moroi M, Kondoh C, Kiso K, et al. Recommendations for (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for cardiac sarcoidosis: Japanese Society of Nuclear Cardiology recommendations. Ann Nucl Med. 2014;28(4):393–403.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Ordovas KG, Higgins CB. Delayed contrast enhancement on MR images of myocardium: past, present, future. Radiology. 2011;261(2):358–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Manabe O, Oyama-Manabe N, Ohira H, Tsutsui H, Tamaki N. Multimodality evaluation of cardiac sarcoidosis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19(3):621–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Ohira H, Birnie DH, Pena E, Bernick J, Mc Ardle B, Leung E, et al. Comparison of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in corticosteroid-naive patients with conduction system disease due to cardiac sarcoidosis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(2):259–69.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kouranos V, Tzelepis GE, Rapti A, Mavrogeni S, Aggeli K, Douskou M, et al. Complementary role of CMR to conventional screening in the diagnosis and prognosis of cardiac sarcoidosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(12):1437–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Blankstein R, Osborne M, Naya M, Waller A, Kim CK, Murthy VL, et al. Cardiac positron emission tomography enhances prognostic assessments of patients with suspected cardiac sarcoidosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(4):329–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Manabe O, Yoshinaga K, Ohira H, Sato T, Tsujino I, Yamada A, et al. Right ventricular (18)F-FDG uptake is an important indicator for cardiac involvement in patients with suspected cardiac sarcoidosis. Ann Nucl Med. 2014;28(7):656–67.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Norikane T, Yamamoto Y, Maeda Y, Noma T, Dobashi H, Nishiyama Y. Comparative evaluation of (18)F-FLT and (18)F-FDG for detecting cardiac and extra-cardiac thoracic involvement in patients with newly diagnosed sarcoidosis. EJNMMI Res. 2017;7(1):69.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Martineau P, Pelletier-Galarneau M, Juneau D, Leung E, Nery PB, de Kemp R, et al. Imaging cardiac sarcoidosis with FLT-PET compared with FDG/Perfusion-PET: a prospective pilot study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12(11 Pt 1):2280–1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Manabe O, Hirata K, Shozo O, Shiga T, Uchiyama Y, Kobayashi K, et al. (18)F-fluoromisonidazole (FMISO) PET may have the potential to detect cardiac sarcoidosis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24(1):329–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Furuya S, Naya M, Manabe O, Hirata K, Ohira H, Aikawa T, et al. (18)F-FMISO PET/CT detects hypoxic lesions of cardiac and extra-cardiac involvement in patients with sarcoidosis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-019-01976-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Van Riet J, Hill EE, Gheysens O, Dymarkowski S, Herregods MC, Herijgers P, et al. (18)F-FDG PET/CT for early detection of embolism and metastatic infection in patients with infective endocarditis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(6):1189–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Saby L, Laas O, Habib G, Cammilleri S, Mancini J, Tessonnier L, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography for diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis: increased valvular 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake as a novel major criterion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(23):2374–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Asmar A, Ozcan C, Diederichsen AC, Thomassen A, Gill S. Clinical impact of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the extra cardiac work-up of patients with infective endocarditis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;15(9):1013–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Pizzi MN, Roque A, Fernandez-Hidalgo N, Cuellar-Calabria H, Ferreira-Gonzalez I, Gonzalez-Alujas MT, et al. Improving the diagnosis of infective endocarditis in prosthetic valves and intracardiac devices with 18F-fluordeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography angiography: initial results at an infective endocarditis referral center. Circulation. 2015;132(12):1113–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Jimenez-Ballve A, Perez-Castejon MJ, Delgado-Bolton RC, Sanchez-Enrique C, Vilacosta I, Vivas D, et al. Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in prosthetic infective endocarditis and cardiac implantable electronic device infection: comparison of different interpretation criteria. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(13):2401–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Mahmood M, Kendi AT, Ajmal S, Farid S, O'Horo JC, Chareonthaitawee P, et al. Meta-analysis of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019;26(3):922–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Bruls S, Courtois A, Nusgens B, Defraigne JO, Delvenne P, Hustinx R, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT in the management of aortitis. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41(1):28–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. van der Valk FM, Verweij SL, Zwinderman KA, Strang AC, Kaiser Y, Marquering HA, et al. Thresholds for arterial wall inflammation quantified by (18)F-FDG PET Imaging: implications for vascular interventional studies. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(10):1198–207.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Yabusaki S, Oyama-Manabe N, Manabe O, Hirata K, Kato F, Miyamoto N, et al. Characteristics of immunoglobulin G4-related aortitis/periaortitis and periarteritis on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography co-registered with contrast-enhanced computed tomography. EJNMMI Res. 2017;7(1):20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Oyama-Manabe N, Yabusaki S, Manabe O, Kato F, Kanno-Okada H, Kudo K. IgG4-related cardiovascular disease from the aorta to the coronary arteries: multidetector CT and PET/CT. Radiographics. 2018;38(7):1934–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Mikail N, Benali K, Dossier A, Bouleti C, Hyafil F, Le Guludec D, et al. Additional diagnostic value of combined angio-computed tomography and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in infectious aortitis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11(2 Pt 2):361–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Olthof SC, Krumm P, Henes J, Nikolaou K, la Fougere C, Pfannenberg C, et al. Imaging giant cell arteritis and aortitis in contrast enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT: which imaging score correlates best with laboratory inflammation markers? Eur J Radiol. 2018;99:94–102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Padoan R, Crimi F, Felicetti M, Padovano F, Lacognata C, Stramare R, et al. Fully integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR in large vessel vasculitis. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1824-4785.19.03184-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Rahbar K, Seifarth H, Schafers M, Stegger L, Hoffmeier A, Spieker T, et al. Differentiation of malignant and benign cardiac tumors using 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(6):856–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Kikuchi Y, Oyama-Manabe N, Manabe O, Naya M, Ito YM, Hatanaka KC, et al. Imaging characteristics of cardiac dominant diffuse large B-cell lymphoma demonstrated with MDCT and PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(9):1337–444.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Nensa F, Tezgah E, Poeppel TD, Jensen CJ, Schelhorn J, Kohler J, et al. Integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging in the assessment of cardiac masses: a pilot study. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(2):255–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Krumm P, Mangold S, Gatidis S, Nikolaou K, Nensa F, Bamberg F, et al. Clinical use of cardiac PET/MRI: current state-of-the-art and potential future applications. Jpn J Radiol. 2018;36(5):313–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Manabe O, Oyama-Manabe N, Nagai T, Furuya S, Anzai T. Detailed visualization of the right and left ventricular, left atrial, and epicardial involvement of cardiac sarcoidosis with novel semiconductor PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47(7):1773–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Shiro Miura and Eriko Suzuki for their support of this study.

Funding

This research was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for General Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI 19H03592).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan

    Osamu Manabe

  2. Department of Radiology, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan

    Osamu Manabe & Tadao Aikawa

  3. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Kita-15, Nishi-7, Kita-ku, Sapporo, 060-8638, Japan

    Masanao Naya

  4. Cardiovascular Research Center, Icahn School of Medicine At Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Tadao Aikawa

  5. Department of Radiology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan

    Nagara Tamaki

Authors
  1. Osamu Manabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masanao Naya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tadao Aikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nagara Tamaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masanao Naya.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manabe, O., Naya, M., Aikawa, T. et al. Recent advances in cardiac positron emission tomography for quantitative perfusion analyses and molecular imaging. Ann Nucl Med 34, 697–706 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-020-01519-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-020-01519-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation