Efficiency comparison between 99m Tc-tetrofosmin and 99m Tc-sestamibi myocardial perfusion studies

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the efficiency of two different imaging protocols using two different clinically available 99mTc labelled myocardial perfusion tracers. One thousand one hundred and thirty-four imaging studies were performed prospectively, using either 99mTc-tetrofosmin or 99mTc-sestamibi, alternating the use of each tracer for a total period of 8 months. 99mTc-tetrofosmin rest studies were performed with injections of 259MBq-370MBq and imaging 30 min later. Exercise studies were performed with injections of 777MBq-1.11GBq and imaging 20 min later. 99mTc-sestamibi studies used doses similar to those in the 99mTc-tetrofosmin studies. Imaging followed a standard procedure, at 60 min after rest injection, and 30 min after exercise. For patients undergoing pharmacological stress testing99mTc-sestamibi was imaged 45 min after injection and 99mTc-tetrofosmin was imaged 30 min after injection. Variables analysed were (1) injection-to-imaging time for the procedure, and (2) the number of repeated scans because of extra cardiac activity. The completion time for the rest study was significantly shorter for 99mTc-tetrofosmin compared to 99mTc-sestamibi (47.7+/-21.7 min vs 74.3+/-25.8 min P<0.0001). Likewise, the total study time was shorter for 99mTc-tetrofosmin compared to 99mTc-sestamibi (90+/-32.7 min vs 124+/-37 min, P<0.0001). More importantly, the number of repeated scans was higher with 99mTc-sestamibi compared to 99mTc-tetrofosmin, 21.4% vs 10%, P=0.001 for rest studies and 16.4% vs 7.9% P=0.001 [corrected] for rest and stress. It was concluded that, using a same day rest/stress protocol, 99mTc-tetrofosmin provided higher patient throughput with fewer repeat scans. These factors may be considered for efficiency improvement in nuclear cardiology laboratories using 99mTc perfusion tracers.