RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 18F-FDG PET in Myocardial Viability Assessment: A Practical and Time-Efficient Protocol JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine JO J Nucl Med FD Society of Nuclear Medicine SP 602 OP 608 DO 10.2967/jnumed.121.262432 VO 63 IS 4 A1 Mhlanga, Joyce A1 Derenoncourt, Paul A1 Haq, Adeel A1 Bhandiwad, Anita A1 Laforest, Richard A1 Siegel, Barry A. A1 Dehdashti, Farrokh A1 Gropler, Robert J. A1 Schindler, Thomas H. YR 2022 UL http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/63/4/602.abstract AB We assessed image quality using a practical and time-efficient protocol for intravenous glucose loading and insulin injection before administration of 18F-FDG for PET myocardial viability evaluation in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: The metabolic preparation period (MPP) or optimal cardiac 18F-FDG uptake was determined from the time of intravenous infusion of 12.5 or 25 g of 50% dextrose to the time of 18F-FDG injection. Cardiac 18F-FDG image quality was evaluated according to a 5-point scoring system (from 5, excellent, to 1, nondiagnostic) by 2 independent observers. In cases of disagreement, consensus was achieved in a joint reading. Fifteen patients with ICM who underwent oral glucose loading and intravenous insulin administration served as a reference for MPP comparisons. Results: Fifty-nine consecutive patients (age, 63 ± 10 y; 48 men and 11 women) underwent rest 99mTc-tetrofosmin SPECT/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for the evaluation of myocardial viability. 18F-FDG image quality was scored as excellent in 42%, very good in 36%, good in 17%, fair in 3%, and nondiagnostic in 2%. When diabetic and nondiabetic patients were compared, the quality scores were excellent in 29% versus 76%, very good in 41% versus 18%, good in 24% versus 6%, fair in 4% versus 0%, and nondiagnostic in 2% versus 0%. The mean (±SD) quality score was 4.12 ± 0.95, and overall it was better in nondiabetic than in diabetic patients (4.71 ± 0.59 vs. 3.88 ± 0.96; P < 0.0001). Notably, the average MPP was significantly less with intravenous glucose loading than with oral glucose loading (51 ± 15 min vs. 132 ± 29 min; P < 0.0001), paralleled by higher insulin doses (6.3 ± 2.2 U vs. 2.0 ± 1.69 U; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Using a practical and time-efficient protocol for intravenous glucose loading and insulin administration before 18F-FDG injection reduces the MPP by 61% as compared with an oral glucose challenge and affords good-to-excellent image quality in 95% of ICM patients.