Myocardial perfusion imaging: Lessons learned and work to be done-update. Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Iskandrian, A. E., Dilsizian, V. n., Garcia, E. V., Beanlands, R. S., Cerqueira, M. n., Soman, P. n., Berman, D. S., Cuocolo, A. n., Einstein, A. J., Morgan, C. J., Hage, F. G., Schelbert, H. R., Bax, J. J., Wu, J. C., Shaw, L. J., Sadeghi, M. M., Tamaki, N. n., Kaufmann, P. A., Gropler, R. n., Dorbala, S. n., Van Decker, W. n. 2018; 25 (1): 39–52


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.

View details for PubMedID 29110288