Clinical Trials Directory

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

TypeNameDescription
OTHERSPECT imagingDipyridamole stress testing 0.57 mg/kg
OTHERPET imagingDipyridamole 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.