Low-dose dual-isotope procedure planed for myocardial perfusion CZT-SPECT and assessed through a head-to-head comparison with a conventional single-isotope protocol

6Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Purpose of the report: This study aimed at assessing an original low-dose dual-isotope procedure in which the abnormal stress Tc-99m Sestamibi SPECT is followed by rest Tl-201 SPECT, along with a head-to-head comparison with a single-isotope procedure. Methods and results: One hundred two patients, referred for a low-dose stress-SPECT with Sestamibi (123 ± 20 MBq) on a CZT camera and for whom a rest Sestamibi SPECT was warranted, had an additional Tl-201 rest-SPECT (52 ± 5 MBq) between stress and rest Sestamibi SPECT recordings. Tl-201 images were processed for spill-over and scatter corrections, and uptake differences with stress Sestamibi SPECT were analyzed: (1) for rest acquisitions from Tl-201 (dual-isotope procedure) and from Sestamibi (single-isotope procedure) and (2) in segments for which a diagnosis of ischemia, infarct, or normal perfusion was achieved. Mean effective dose was 8.3 mSv for dual-isotope but would decrease to 5.7 mSv for an expected rate of 37% of patients for whom rest-SPECT is not warranted. After a further background correction of Tl-201 images, the rest–stress difference in myocardial uptake was equivalent between dual- and single-procedures for identifying ischemic segments (respective areas-under-curves: 0.83 ± 0.03 and 0.81 ± 0.03). Conclusion: This original dual-isotope procedure provides acceptable radiation doses and consistent results, as compared with conventional single-isotope.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Imbert, L., Roch, V., Merlin, C., Djaballah, W., Cachin, F., Perrin, M., … Marie, P. Y. (2018). Low-dose dual-isotope procedure planed for myocardial perfusion CZT-SPECT and assessed through a head-to-head comparison with a conventional single-isotope protocol. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 25(6), 2016–2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-017-0914-z

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free