Many areas in the U.S. continue to face a surge in COVID cases. ASNC and SNMMI issued pandemic guidance that exercise stress testing should be generally avoided and Cardiac PET may be preferred for rapid throughput and to help minimize time spent by the patient in the laboratory¹.
A mobile PET coach is an ideal environment for CDC recommended isolation precautions²:
- Cardiac PET exams take a total of 45 minutes compared with 3-4 hours for a SPECT exam.
- Our mobile units receive frequent deep cleanings and our clinical staff sanitizes all equipment and frequently touched surfaces between each patient.
- Patients may wait in their vehicles and check in directly with Cardiac Imaging staff.
- Our patient schedule can have no overlap of patients on the coach, whereas SPECT patients must have a dedicated waiting space or must return a second day for their rest/stress protocol.
- Third party SPECT providers must bring equipment and staff into your practice, resulting in potential exposure to your staff and patients.
- Cardiac PET has higher diagnostic accuracy, increased image quality, and significantly lower radiation exposure:
- Sensitivity of 95% (vs. 87% with SPECT) and Specificity of 95% (73%)³
- False positive rate of 5% with PET (vs. 15-36% with SPECT)⁴
- Lower patient radiation exposure of 1.88 mSv via Rb-82 (vs. 11 mSv with Tc-99m)⁵
Cardiac Imaging Inc. is the nation’s largest provider of cardiac PET using Rubidium-82. Our medical labs are fully staffed, sanitized, self-contained mobile coaches. Our program provides superior clinical quality, a better patient experience, and delivers an enhanced value to your practice – even if you are already doing SPECT.
[1] Guidance and best practices for nuclear cardiology laboratories during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: An Information Statement from ASNC and SNMMI. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:784-791.
[2] CDC Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings –https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/isolation/index.html
[3] Bateman, TM, Heller, GV, McGhie, IA, et. al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Rest/Stress ECG-gated Rb-82 Myocardial Perfusion PET: Comparison with ECG-gated Tc-99m Sestamibi SPECT. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology. 2006;13:24-33.
[4] Merhige ME, et al.. Impact of myocardial perfusion imaging with PET and (82)Rb on downstream invasive procedure utilization, costs, and outcomes in coronary disease management. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1069 –76
[5] Andrew J. Einstein, et al. “Radiation Dose to Patients From Cardiac Diagnostic Imaging.” AHA. 2007; 116:1290-1305.
