• This record comes from PubMed

Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of exercise treadmill nitrogen-13 ammonia PET myocardial perfusion imaging of obese patients

. 2015 Dec ; 22 (6) : 1273-80. [epub] 20150317

Language English Country United States Media print-electronic

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Grant support
UL1 TR000135 NCATS NIH HHS - United States

Links

PubMed 25777780
DOI 10.1007/s12350-015-0073-z
PII: S1071-3581(23)07186-6
Knihovny.cz E-resources

BACKGROUND: Treadmill exercise nitrogen-13 ((13)N)-ammonia positron emission tomography (PET) has logistical challenges and limited literature. We aimed to assess its feasibility, image quality, and diagnostic accuracy in obese and nonobese patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2012, 10,804 patients were referred for myocardial perfusion imaging, including 300 for treadmill PET, of whom 265 were included in this study. Treadmill testing and PET were performed using standard procedures. Image quality, perfusion, and summed stress score (SSS) were assessed. Invasive coronary angiography was performed within 90 days of PET in 43 patients. Mean ± SD body mass index (BMI) was 35.7 ± 7.7 kg/m(2) (range 19.5-63.5 kg/m(2)). Feasibility of treadmill (13)N-ammonia PET was 100%. Exercise duration was less for obese patients than nonobese patients (P < .001). Image quality was rated good for 96.9% of obese and 100% of nonobese patients. For all patients, sensitivity was 86.4% and specificity was 74.4%. Diagnostic accuracy did not change significantly with increasing BMI. SSS remained significant in predicting angiographic coronary artery disease after adjustment for age, sex, and Duke treadmill score. CONCLUSIONS: Treadmill (13)N-ammonia PET is highly feasible, yields good image quality, and has moderately high diagnostic accuracy in a small subset of obese and nonobese patients who are deemed able to perform treadmill exercise.

Comment In

PubMed

See more in PubMed

J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 Sep;22(3):665-70 PubMed

Jpn Circ J. 1997 Aug;61(8):665-72 PubMed

Can J Cardiol. 2009 Jul;25(7):e220-4 PubMed

J Nucl Cardiol. 2006 Jan-Feb;13(1):24-33 PubMed

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Apr 17;39(8):1345-52 PubMed

J Nucl Cardiol. 1999 Jul-Aug;6(4):389-96 PubMed

Am J Med. 2002 Mar;112(4):290-7 PubMed

Am Heart J. 1987 Mar;113(3):645-54 PubMed

Am J Cardiol. 2000 Mar 15;85(6):749-52 PubMed

Circulation. 1989 Nov;80(5):1328-37 PubMed

J Nucl Cardiol. 2007 Nov-Dec;14 (6):769-74 PubMed

Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 Aug;39(8):1254-61 PubMed

Eur J Nucl Med. 1985;11(6-7):246-51 PubMed

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Apr 19;45(8):1227-34 PubMed

Am Heart J. 2005 Jan;149(1):145-51 PubMed

Cleve Clin J Med. 2008 Jun;75(6):424-30 PubMed

J Nucl Cardiol. 2006 Mar-Apr;13(2):191-201 PubMed

J Nucl Cardiol. 2005 Mar-Apr;12 (2):195-202 PubMed

J Nucl Cardiol. 2007 Nov-Dec;14 (6):818-26 PubMed

J Nucl Cardiol. 2006 Mar-Apr;13(2):202-9 PubMed

J Nucl Cardiol. 2004 May-Jun;11(3):263-72 PubMed

Jpn Circ J. 1994 May;58(5):303-14 PubMed

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Jan 17;47(2):411-6 PubMed

J Nucl Med. 2012 Sep;53(9):1401-6 PubMed

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...