4.3 Article

Comparison of LDPI to SPECT perfusion imaging using 99mTc-sestamibi and 99mTc-pyrophosphate in a murine ischemic hind limb model of neovascularization

Journal

EJNMMI RESEARCH
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGEROPEN
DOI: 10.1186/s13550-016-0199-2

Keywords

Laser Doppler perfusion imaging (LDPI); Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT); Hind limb ischemia; Perfusion recovery; Overestimation of therapeutic window

Funding

  1. Center for Translational Molecular Medicine (CTMM), project EMINENCE [01C-204]
  2. Weijerhorst foundation
  3. The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [911-06-003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: We aimed to determine the accuracy of laser Doppler perfusion imaging (LDPI) in an animal model for hind limb ischemia. Methods: We used a murine (C57Bl/6 mice) ischemic hind limb model in which we compared LDPI with the clinically used Tc-99m-sestamibi SPECT perfusion imaging (n = 7). In addition, we used the SPECT tracer Tc-99m-pyrophosphate (Tc-99m-PyP) to image muscular damage (n = 6). Results: LDPI indicated a quick and prominent decrease in perfusion immediately after ligation, subsequently recovering to 21.9 and 25.2 % 14 days later in the Tc-99m-sestamibi and Tc-99m-PyP group, respectively. Tc-99m-sestamibi SPECT scans also showed a quick decrease in perfusion. However, nearly full recovery was reached 7 days post ligation. Muscular damage, indicated by the uptake of Tc-99m-PyP, was highest at day 3 and recovered to baseline levels at day 14 post ligation. Postmortem histology supported these findings, as a significantly increased collateral diameter was found 7 and 14 days after ligation and peak macrophage infiltration and TUNEL positivity was found on day 3 after ligation. Conclusions: Here, we indicate that LDPI strongly underestimates perfusion recovery in a hind limb model for profound ischemia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available