18F-fluorodeoxyglucose use after cardiac transplant: A comparative study of suppression of physiological myocardial uptake.
Adult
Anticoagulants
Diet, Carbohydrate-Restricted
Diet, Diabetic
Fasting
Feasibility Studies
Female
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
/ pharmacokinetics
Heart Failure
/ diagnostic imaging
Heart Transplantation
Heparin
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Radiopharmaceuticals
/ pharmacokinetics
Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography Computed Tomography
/ methods
18F-FDG
Heart transplant
PET
myocardial uptake
Journal
Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology
ISSN: 1532-6551
Titre abrégé: J Nucl Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9423534
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
received:
30
01
2018
accepted:
12
04
2018
pubmed:
28
6
2018
medline:
23
6
2021
entrez:
28
6
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) has been useful in the evaluation of myocardial inflammatory processes. However, it is challenging to identify them due to physiological 18F-FDG uptake. There are no publications demonstrating the application of FDG in post-transplant rejection in humans yet. The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility of suppression of myocardial FDG uptake in post-transplant patients, comparing three different protocols of preparation. Ten patients after heart transplantation were imaged by FDG associated with three endomyocardial biopsies (EMB), scheduled in the first year after the procedure. Before each imaging, patients were randomized to one of three preparations: (1) hyperlipidic-hypoglycemic diet; (2) fasting longer than 12 hours; and (3) fasting associated with intravenous heparin. All patients would undergo the three methods. FDG images were analyzed using visual analysis scores and relative radiotracer cardiac uptake (RRCU). The suppression rate of radiotracer activity ranged from 55% to 62%. Visual analysis showed that preparation 3 presented less efficacy in the suppression compared to the others. However, RRCU did not show difference between the preparations. Suppression of physiological myocardial FDG uptake after cardiac transplantation is feasible. The usefulness of heparin in the suppression is unclear.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) has been useful in the evaluation of myocardial inflammatory processes. However, it is challenging to identify them due to physiological 18F-FDG uptake. There are no publications demonstrating the application of FDG in post-transplant rejection in humans yet. The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility of suppression of myocardial FDG uptake in post-transplant patients, comparing three different protocols of preparation.
METHODS
Ten patients after heart transplantation were imaged by FDG associated with three endomyocardial biopsies (EMB), scheduled in the first year after the procedure. Before each imaging, patients were randomized to one of three preparations: (1) hyperlipidic-hypoglycemic diet; (2) fasting longer than 12 hours; and (3) fasting associated with intravenous heparin. All patients would undergo the three methods. FDG images were analyzed using visual analysis scores and relative radiotracer cardiac uptake (RRCU).
RESULTS
The suppression rate of radiotracer activity ranged from 55% to 62%. Visual analysis showed that preparation 3 presented less efficacy in the suppression compared to the others. However, RRCU did not show difference between the preparations.
CONCLUSIONS
Suppression of physiological myocardial FDG uptake after cardiac transplantation is feasible. The usefulness of heparin in the suppression is unclear.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29948896
doi: 10.1007/s12350-018-1309-5
pii: 10.1007/s12350-018-1309-5
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anticoagulants
0
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Heparin
9005-49-6
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
173-181Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Int J Pharm. 2008 Jun 24;358(1-2):219-23
pubmed: 18448283
J Nucl Cardiol. 2011 Oct;18(5):926-36
pubmed: 21732228
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Sep;16(9):919-48
pubmed: 26139361
J Nucl Med Technol. 2011 Sep;39(3):185-9
pubmed: 21795368
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Feb;190(2):W151-6
pubmed: 18212199
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010 Apr;3(4):388-97
pubmed: 20394901
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005 Nov;24(11):1710-20
pubmed: 16297770
J Nucl Cardiol. 2013 Dec;20(6):1108-15
pubmed: 24132814
J Nucl Cardiol. 2013 Feb;20(1):120-7
pubmed: 23188627
J Nucl Cardiol. 2011 May;18(3):516-20
pubmed: 21394554
Clin Nucl Med. 2017 Feb;42(2):88-94
pubmed: 27922863
Biomed Mater Eng. 2007;17(4):219-27
pubmed: 17611297
J Nucl Med. 2009 Apr;50(4):563-8
pubmed: 19289431
J Nucl Cardiol. 2016 Apr;23(2):244-52
pubmed: 26243179
J Nucl Med. 2017 Aug;58(8):1341-1353
pubmed: 28765228
Ann Nucl Med. 2014 May;28(4):393-403
pubmed: 24464391
Clin Nucl Med. 2016 Jul;41(7):e327-39
pubmed: 26646995
J Nucl Med. 2014 Oct;55(10):1629-35
pubmed: 25082852
Jpn J Radiol. 2015 Jul;33(7):385-91
pubmed: 25981760
Transplantation. 2015 Sep;99(9):e132-9
pubmed: 25675207
J Nucl Med. 2015 Jun;56(6):839-46
pubmed: 25883126
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005 Jan;32(1):98-101
pubmed: 15605289
J Cardiol. 2013 Nov;62(5):314-9
pubmed: 23810066
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Aug;30(2):533-8
pubmed: 9247529
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Aug;37(9):1802-12
pubmed: 20577740
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Aug 19;52(8):587-98
pubmed: 18702960