Trials / Completed
CompletedNCT01179230
Rubidium-82 Position Emission Computed Tomography (PET) Versus Gated, Rest / Stress Technetium 99-m SPECT
A Prospective Comparison of Gated, Rest/Stress Rubidium-82 Position Emission Computed Tomography (PET) vs. Gated, Rest / Stress Technetium 99-m SPECT
- Status
- Completed
- Phase
- —
- Study type
- Observational
- Enrollment
- 136 (actual)
- Sponsor
- Hartford Hospital · Academic / Other
- Sex
- All
- Age
- 50 Years
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
Summary
Many stress tests being done today have two parts, the stress test and the pictures of your heart. The investigators are comparing a newer technique to obtain the pictures (PET imaging) to the standard method (SPECT imaging). However, it is not known if the new test is better than the old test. It is important to have a standard to compare these tests to, and that is why people who will be getting a cardiac catheterization are being asked to participate. The information about your arteries from the cardiac catheterization will be used to judge which stress test is better. The investigators hypothesize that the newer method (PET imaging) will be more accurate than the old method (SPECT) in detecting heart disease.
Detailed description
A SPECT rest image will be obtained using a technetium based isotope. On a separate day, a Rubidium rest PET image will be obtained prior to a Dipyridamole stress test. Subjects will receive both Rubidium and technetium isotopes following the Dipyridamole stress, and will undergo first PET imaging and later SPECT imaging following the stress test. Patients will then go for cardiac catheterization as clinically ordered by their physician.
Conditions
Interventions
| Type | Name | Description |
|---|---|---|
| OTHER | SPECT imaging | Dipyridamole stress testing 0.57 mg/kg |
| OTHER | PET imaging | Dipyridamole stress test 0.57 mg/kg with Rubidium PET images |
Timeline
- Start date
- 2005-01-01
- Primary completion
- 2012-12-01
- Completion
- 2012-12-01
- First posted
- 2010-08-11
- Last updated
- 2015-03-23
Locations
5 sites across 1 country: United States
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT01179230. Inclusion in this directory is not an endorsement.