Support

Elizabeth Rowland @ 12:11 PM on 18 Feb, 2013 — Edited@ 09:57 PM on 15 Mar, 2013

There has been a shift from late-stage diagnosis and in-hospital care to detection of subclinical disease and prevention. In this article, they propose that molecular imaging will address challenges such as vulnerable plaque and ventricular remodeling. This article further discusses the most recent advancements in the field of nuclear cardiovascular imaging. The first advancement addresses the issue of inflammation by identifying an 18F-labeled vascular cell adhesion molecule ligand that allows the visualization of the vascular cell adhesion molecule using a PET/CT scan. There is suggestion that “…inflammatory activity in the vessel wall may be more predictive of rupture…” in the case of an aneurysm. The article promotes evidence by noting that the PET signal was increased with progressing aneurysms when using the 18F label to track the inflammation level. Upon the discussion of myocardial infarction and ventricular remodeling, the article suggests a similar strategy of using 18F-FDG PET to monitor the inflammation response after an ischemic myocardial injury (Majmudar & Nahrendorf, 2012).

With such an up-and-coming field that seems so incredibly beneficial towards a population with the lead cause of death being cardiovascular disease, what is the comparative effectiveness of such strategy? Were there any problems/issues when using the 18F-labeled ligand? What could potentially be an issue with using such a label on certain patients? What are some other sources in medicine that are using molecular diagnostics as preventative medicine, rather than cures to a late-stage diagnosis?

Majmudar, M. D., & Nahrendorf, M. (2012). Cardiovascular Molecular Imaging: The Road Ahead. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 53(5), 673-676. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.111.099838