Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Nucl Cardiol. 2018 Feb;25(1):39-52. doi: 10.1007/s12350-017-1093-7. Epub 2017 Nov 6.

Myocardial perfusion imaging: Lessons learned and work to be done-update.

Author information

1
Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 318 LHRB/ 1900 University BLVD, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA. aiskand@uab.edu.
2
University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, 21201, USA.
3
Emory University, Atlanta, 30322, USA.
4
University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
5
Cleveland Clinic, Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
6
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
7
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
8
University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, Italy.
9
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
10
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
11
Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, AL, USA.
12
University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
13
Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
14
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
15
Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
16
Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
17
University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
18
Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
19
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
20
Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Abstract

As the second term of our commitment to Journal begins, we, the editors, would like to reflect on a few topics that have relevance today. These include prognostication and paradigm shifts; Serial testing: How to handle data? Is the change in perfusion predictive of outcome and which one? Ischemia-guided therapy: fractional flow reserve vs perfusion vs myocardial blood flow; positron emission tomography (PET) imaging using Rubidium-82 vs N-13 ammonia vs F-18 Flurpiridaz; How to differentiate microvascular disease from 3-vessel disease by PET? The imaging scene outside the United States, what are the differences and similarities? Radiation exposure; Special issues with the new cameras? Is attenuation correction needed? Are there normal databases and are these specific to each camera system? And finally, hybrid imaging with single-photon emission tomography or PET combined with computed tomography angiography or coronary calcium score. We hope these topics are of interest to our readers.

KEYWORDS:

Myocardial perfusion imaging; coronary artery disease; nuclear imaging; positron emission tomography; prognosis; single-photon emission tomography

PMID:
29110288
DOI:
10.1007/s12350-017-1093-7

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center