Display options
Cite
Chatal JF, Rouzet F, Haddad F, et al. Story of Rubidium-82 and Advantages for Myocardial Perfusion PET Imaging. Front Med (Lausanne). 2015;2:65doi: 10.3389/fmed.2015.00065.
Chatal, J. F., Rouzet, F., Haddad, F., Bourdeau, C., Mathieu, C., & Le Guludec, D. (2015). Story of Rubidium-82 and Advantages for Myocardial Perfusion PET Imaging. Frontiers in medicine, 265. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2015.00065
Chatal, Jean-François, et al. "Story of Rubidium-82 and Advantages for Myocardial Perfusion PET Imaging." Frontiers in medicine vol. 2 (2015): 65. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2015.00065
Chatal JF, Rouzet F, Haddad F, Bourdeau C, Mathieu C, Le Guludec D. Story of Rubidium-82 and Advantages for Myocardial Perfusion PET Imaging. Front Med (Lausanne). 2015 Sep 11;2:65. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2015.00065. eCollection 2015. PMID: 26442267; PMCID: PMC4566054.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Med (Lausanne). 2015 Sep 11;2:65. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2015.00065. eCollection 2015.

Story of Rubidium-82 and Advantages for Myocardial Perfusion PET Imaging.

Frontiers in medicine

Jean-François Chatal, François Rouzet, Ferid Haddad, Cécile Bourdeau, Cédric Mathieu, Dominique Le Guludec

Affiliations

  1. Groupement d'Intérêt Public Arronax, University of Nantes , Saint-Herblain , France.
  2. UMR 1148, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Bichat Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, DHU FIRE (Fibrosis, Inflammation, Remodeling in Cardiovascular, Respiratory and Renal Diseases), Paris-Diderot University , Paris , France.
  3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Nantes University Hospital , Nantes , France.

PMID: 26442267 PMCID: PMC4566054 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2015.00065

Abstract

Rubidium-82 has a long story, starting in 1954. After preclinical studies in dogs showing that myocardial uptake of this radionuclide was directly proportional to myocardial blood flow (MBF), clinical studies were performed in the 80s leading to an approval in the USA in 1989. From that time, thousands of patients have been tested and their results have been reported in three meta-analyses. Pooled patient-based sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 0.91 and 0.90. By comparison with (99m)Tc-SPECT, (82)Rb PET had a much better diagnostic accuracy, especially in obese patients with body mass index ≥30 kg/m(2) (85 versus 67% with SPECT) and in women with large breasts. A great advantage of (82)Rb PET is its capacity to accurately quantify MBF. Quite importantly, it has been recently shown that coronary flow reserve is associated with adverse cardiovascular events independently of luminal angiographic severity. Moreover, coronary flow reserve is a functional parameter particularly useful in the estimate of microvascular dysfunction, such as in diabetes mellitus. Due to the very short half-life of rubidium-82, the effective dose calculated for a rest/stress test is roughly equivalent to the annual natural exposure and even less when stress-only is performed with a low activity compatible with a good image quality with the last generation 3D PET scanners. There is still some debate on the relative advantages of (82)Rb PET with regard to (99m)Tc-SPECT. For the last 10 years, great technological advances substantially improved performances of SPECT with its accuracy getting closer to this of (82)Rb/PET. Currently, the main advantages of PET are its capacity to accurately quantify MBF and to deliver a low radiation exposure.

Keywords: PET imaging; myocardial perfusion; rubidium-82

References

  1. J Nucl Med. 1979 Sep;20(9):961-6 - PubMed
  2. JAMA. 1998 Sep 9;280(10 ):913-20 - PubMed
  3. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006 Jan-Feb;13(1):24-33 - PubMed
  4. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Dec;41(12 ):2294-306 - PubMed
  5. Am Heart J. 2001 Dec;142(6):934-44 - PubMed
  6. J Nucl Med. 2013 Jun;54(6):873-9 - PubMed
  7. Circ Res. 1961 Jan;9:96-8 - PubMed
  8. Semin Nucl Med. 2014 Sep;44(5):333-43 - PubMed
  9. Circulation. 2015 Jan 6;131(1):19-27 - PubMed
  10. Am J Cardiol. 1991 Jun 15;67(16):1303-10 - PubMed
  11. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Dec;14 (12 ):1203-10 - PubMed
  12. Circ Res. 1954 Mar;2(2):112-22 - PubMed
  13. J Nucl Med. 1976 Oct;17(10):880-9 - PubMed
  14. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2003 Feb;19(1):23-8 - PubMed
  15. Am J Cardiol. 1982 Jul;50(1):112-21 - PubMed
  16. J Nucl Med. 2015 Apr;56(4):592-9 - PubMed
  17. J Nucl Med. 1990 Dec;31(12 ):1899-905 - PubMed
  18. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 Aug;39(8):1231-2 - PubMed
  19. J Nucl Med. 1988 Jun;29(6):1136-43 - PubMed
  20. Health Technol Assess. 2004 Jul;8(30):iii-iv, 1-207 - PubMed
  21. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 May 8;59(19):1719-28 - PubMed
  22. J Nucl Med. 2014 Jan;55(1):58-64 - PubMed
  23. J Nucl Med. 2010 Oct;51(10):1592-9 - PubMed
  24. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 Aug;39(8):1233-9 - PubMed
  25. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Dec;41(12 ):2291-3 - PubMed
  26. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Nov;7(11):1119-27 - PubMed
  27. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Aug 9;58(7):740-8 - PubMed
  28. Circulation. 2012 Oct 9;126(15):1858-68 - PubMed
  29. Acad Radiol. 2008 Apr;15(4):444-51 - PubMed
  30. Am J Cardiol. 1995 Apr 13;75(11):25D-34D - PubMed
  31. Eur Heart J. 1991 Oct;12 (10 ):1064-9 - PubMed
  32. Circ Res. 1959 Jan;7(1):24-30 - PubMed
  33. Circulation. 2010 Dec 7;122(23):2403-10 - PubMed
  34. J Nucl Med. 2009 Jul;50(7):1062-71 - PubMed
  35. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986 Apr;7(4):775-89 - PubMed
  36. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Mar;7(3):278-87 - PubMed
  37. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Nov;7(6):930-7 - PubMed
  38. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Oct 30;60(18):1828-37 - PubMed

Publication Types