Inhibition of Physiologic Myocardial FDG Uptake in Normal Rodents: Comparison of Four Pre-Scan Preparation Protocols

Rumman A. K. Langah, Kenneth M. Spicer, Raymond Chang, Michael Rosol

Division of Animal Imaging, Department of Radiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, USA.
Nuclear Medicine Division, Department of Radiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/ami.2012.23004                

Abstract

Background: Suppression of physiologic myocardial sequestration of glucose, and hence the 2-deoxy-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) is of critical importance to effectively evaluate intrinsic cardiac pathology and better delineate extra- cardiac FDG activity on Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imaging. In a rodent model, we studied the effect of duration of fasting with or without high fat diet (HFD) consumption on myocardial FDG uptake. Methods: 9 Sprague- Dawley rats underwent four different preparation protocols before obtaining micro PET imaging: Non-fasting (NF), 18-hrs/Prolonged fasting (PF), 12-hrs/Short fasting followed by High Fat Diet (SF-HFD) and 18-hrs/Prolonged fasting followed by High Fat Diet (PF-HFD). Region of interest were drawn on the myocardium (heart) and ascending aorta (blood pool) to generate maximum standard uptake values (SUVm) for the heart (H-SUVm) and blood pool (BP- SUVm). Results: PF-HFD and SF-HFD preparation protocols resulted in significantly lower H-SUVm as compared to PF and NF protocols with H-SUVm of 1.49, 1.56, 4.38 and 10.19 respectively. Conclusion: PF-HFD and SF-HFD preparation protocols provide superior suppression of myocardial FDG uptake in comparison to PF and NF protocols. These findings offer an approach to study intrinsic cardiac disorders (vascular, infiltrative etc) and also provide better visualization of extra-cardiac pathologic disorders.

Keywords

Small Animal Imaging; Fasting; High Fat Diet; PET

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	A. Dey, “Understanding and Using Context,” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2001, pp. 4-7. doi:10.1007/s007790170019
[2]	L. Atzori, A. Iera and G. Morabito, “The Internet of Things: A Survey,” Computer Networks, Vol. 54, No. 15, 2010, pp. 2787-2805. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2010.05.010
[3]	J. Bleecker, “A Manifesto for Networked Objects Cohabiting with Pigeons, Arphids and Aibos in the Internet of Things (Why Things Matter)”, 2006. http://research.techkwondo.com/blog/julian/185
[4]	J. Xia and J. H. Ma, “Building Smart Communities with Cyber-Physical Systems,” ACM UBICOMP Symposium on Social and Community Intelligence (SCI), Beijing, September 2011, arXiv:1201.0216v1.
[5]	J. Kleinberg, S. Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan and A. Tomkins, “The Web as a Graph: Measurements, Models and Methods,” International Conference on Combinatorics and Computing, Vol. 1672, 1999, pp. 1-17.
[6]	T. Strang and C. Linnhoff-Popien, “Context Modeling Survey,” UbiComp—International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, September 2004.
[7]	R. Hoekstra, “Representing Social Reality in Owl 2,” International Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions OWLED, 2010. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-614/owled2010_submission_29.pdf
[8]	G. Biamino, “Modeling Social Contexts for Pervasive Computing Environments,” IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshop, Torino, 21-25 March 2011, pp. 415-420.
[9]	R. D. Alba, “A Graph-Theoretic Definition of a Sociometric Clique,” Journal of Mathematical Sociology, Vol. 3, 1973, pp. 3-113. doi:10.1080/0022250X.1973.9989826
[10]	R. B. Cialdini, “Influence: Science and Practice,” 4th Edition, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, 2001.
[11]	R. F. Bales, “A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1950, pp. 257-263. doi:10.2307/2086790
[12]	C. E. Larson and F. M. J. LaFasto, “Team Work: What Must Go Right,” Sage Publications, Newbury Park, 1989.
[13]	H. Tajfel and J. C. Turner, “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations,” Brooks/Cole, Monterey, 1979.
[14]	J. Searle, “Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1969. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139173438