• 1
    Salerno M, Beller GA. Noninvasive assessment of myocardial perfusion. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:412424.
  • 2
    Bengel FM, Higuchi T, Javadi MS, et al. Cardiac positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:115.
  • 3
    Le Guludec D, Lautamaki R, Knuuti J, et al. Present and future of clinical cardiovascular PET imaging in Europe—a position statement by the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology (ECNC). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:17091724.
  • 4
    Nandalur KR, Dwamena BA, Choudhri AF, et al. Diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography in the detection of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Acad Radiol. 2008;15: 444451.
  • 5
    Cerqueira MD. Diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease: PET is superior to SPECT: Con. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17: 678682.
  • 6
    Dorbala S, Hachamovitch R, Curillova Z, et al. Incremental prognostic value of gated Rb-82 positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging over clinical variables and rest LVEF. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:846854.
  • 7
    Lertsburapa K, Ahlberg AW, Bateman TM, et al. Independent and incremental prognostic value of left ventricular ejection fraction determined by stress gated rubidium 82 PET imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:745753.
  • 8
    Yoshinaga K, Chow B, Williams K, et al. What is the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:10291039.
  • 9
    Marwick TH, Shan K, Patel S, et al. Incremental value of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography for prognostic assessment of known or suspected coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1997;80:865870.
  • 10
    Merhige ME, Breen WJ, Shelton V, et al. Impact of myocardial perfusion imaging with pet and 82Rb on downstream invasive procedure utilization, costs, and outcomes in coronary disease management. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;48:10691076.
  • 11
    Sdringola S, Loghin C, Boccalandro F, et al. Mechanisms of progression and regression of coronary artery disease by PET related to treatment intensity and clinical events at long-term follow-up. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:5967.
  • 12
    Gould KL. Assessing progression and regression of CAD: the role of perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2005;12:625638.
  • 13
    Gould KL, Ornish D, Scherwitz L, et al. Changes in myocardial perfusion abnormalities by positron emission tomography after long-term, intense risk factor modification. JAMA. 1995;274: 894901.
  • 14
    Hicks K, Ganti G, Mullani N, et al. Automated quantitation of three-dimensional cardiac positron emission tomography for routine clinical use. J Nucl Med. 1989;30:17871797.
  • 15
    Diamond GA, Staniloff HM, Forrester JS, et al. Computer-assisted diagnosis in the noninvasive evaluation of patients with suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1983;1:444455.
  • 16
    Hlatky MA, Greenland P, Arnett DK, et al. Criteria for evaluation of novel markers of cardiovascular risk: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2009;119: 24082416.
  • 17
    Hachamovitch R, Di Carli MF. Methods and limitations of assessing new noninvasive tests: part II: outcomes-based validation and reliability assessment of noninvasive testing. Circulation. 2008;117:27932801.
  • 18
    Berman DS, Kang X, Gransar H, et al. Quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion abnormality on SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging is more reproducible than expert visual analysis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:4553.
  • 19
    Iskandrian AE, Garcia EV, Faber T, et al. Automated assessment of serial SPECT myocardial perfusion images. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:69.
  • 20
    Lalonde L, Ziadi MC, Beanlands R. Cardiac positron emission tomography: current clinical practice. Cardiol Clin. 2009;27: 237255.
  • 21
    Metz LD, Beattie M, Hom R, et al. The prognostic value of normal exercise myocardial perfusion imaging and exercise echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:227237.
  • 22
    Momose M, Nakajima K, Nishimura T. Prognostic significance of stress myocardial gated SPECT among Japanese patients referred for coronary angiography: a study of data from the J-ACCESS database. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:13291337.
  • 23
    Bateman TM, Heller GV, McGhie AI, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of rest/stress ECG-gated Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET: comparison with ECG-gated Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13:2433.
  • 24
    Hachamovitch R. Assessing the prognostic value of cardiovascular imaging: a statistical exercise or a guide to clinical value and application? Circulation. 2009;120:13421344.
  • 25
    Boehm J, Haas F, Bauernschmitt R, et al. Impact of preoperative positron emission tomography in patients with severely impaired LV-function undergoing surgical revascularization. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;26:423432.
  • 26
    Simoons ML, Windecker S. Chronic stable coronary artery disease: drugs vs. revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:530541.
  • 27
    D'Egidio G, Nichol G, Williams KA, et al. Increasing benefit from revascularization is associated with increasing amounts of myocardial hibernation: a substudy of the PARR-2 trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:10601068.
  • 28
    Camici PG, Prasad SK, Rimoldi OE. Stunning, hibernation, and assessment of myocardial viability. Circulation. 2008;117:103114.
  • 29
    Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation. 2008;117:12831291.
  • 30
    Hachamovitch R, Berman DS. The use of nuclear cardiology in clinical decision making. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:6272.
  • 31
    Sedlis SP, Boden WE. Percutaneous revascularization for stable coronary artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3: 566567.
  • 32
    Gould KL. Does coronary flow trump coronary anatomy? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:10091023.
  • 33
    Beller GA. Will cardiac positron emission tomography ultimately replace SPECT for myocardial perfusion imaging? J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:841843.
  • 34
    Di Carli MF, Hachamovitch R. Should PET replace SPECT for evaluating CAD? The end of the beginning. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13:27.
  • 35
    Patterson RE, Eisner RL, Horowitz SF. Comparison of cost-effectiveness and utility of exercise ECG, single photon emission computed tomography, positron emission tomography, and coronary angiography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1995;91:5465.
  • 36
    Tio RA, Dabeshlim A, Siebelink H, et al. Comparison between the prognostic value of left ventricular function and myocardial perfusion reserve in patients with ischemic heart disease. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:214219.