title: Comparison of in leakage from labeled endocardial and epicardial cells: impact on modeling viability of cells to be transplanted into myocardium.
abstract: Introduction. Previously we proposed a cellular imaging technique to determine the surviving fraction of transplanted cells in vivo. Epicardial kinetics using Indium-111 determined the Debris Impulse Response Function (DIRF) and leakage coefficient parameters. Convolution-based modeling which corrected for these signal contributions indicated that (111)In activity was quantitative of cell viability with half-lives within 20 hrs to 37 days. We determine if the 37-day upper limit remains valid for endocardial injections by comparing previous epicardial cell leakage parameter estimates to those for endocardial cells. Methods. Normal canine myocardium was injected ((111)In-tropolone) epicardially (9 injections) or endocardially (10 injections). Continuous whole body and SPECT scans for 5 hours were acquired with three weekly follow-up imaging sessions up to 20-26 days. Time-activity curves evaluated each injection type. Results. The epicardial and endocardial kinetics were not significantly different (Epi: 1286 ± 253; Endo: 1567 ± 470 hours P = .62). Conclusion. The original epicardial estimate of leakage kinetics has been validated for use in endocardial injections.
authors: Imaging Program, Lawson Health Research Institute, 268 Grosvenor Street, London, ON, Canada N6A 4V2.
authors: Kimberley J
authors: KJ
authors: Blackwood
authors: Jane
authors: J
authors: Sykes
authors: Lela
authors: L
authors: Deans
authors: Gerald
authors: G
authors: Wisenberg
authors: Frank S
authors: FS
authors: Prato
references: Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med. 2006 Mar;3 Suppl 1:S110-3
references: 16501616
references: Cardiovasc Res. 1990 Oct;24(10):777-80
references: 2085832
references: Am J Physiol. 1980 May;238(5):H625-30
references: 7377358
references: J Nucl Med. 2009 Jun;50(6):927-35
references: 19470852
references: Stem Cells. 2008 Apr;26(4):864-73
references: 18218820
references: J Nucl Med. 2005 May;46(5):816-22
references: 15872356
references: J Nucl Med. 1977 Oct;18(10):1022-6
references: 409746
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005 Dec;32 Suppl 2:S404-16
references: 16205898
references: Circulation. 2005 Aug 30;112(9 Suppl):I150-6
references: 16159808
references: Cardiovasc Res. 1987 Oct;21(10):737-46
references: 3440266
references: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Dec 8;54(24):2277-86
references: 19958962
references: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006 Sep;132(3):628-32
references: 16935119
references: Drug Metab Dispos. 2005 Aug;33(8):1101-7
references: 15879496
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Mar 5;99(5):3030-5
references: 11867752
references: J Nucl Med. 2010 Mar;51(3):413-7
references: 20150266
references: J Nucl Med. 2009 Jul;50(7):1088-94
references: 19525455
references: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Mar 20;49(11):1137-48
references: 17367656
references: Circulation. 2006 Feb 21;113(7):1005-14
references: 16476845
references: IEEE Trans Image Process. 1998;7(1):100-9
references: 18267383
references: Circulation. 2008 Mar 25;117(12):1555-62
references: 18332264
references: Lancet. 2004 Mar 6;363(9411):783-4
references: 15016490
references: Phys Med Biol. 2005 Oct 7;50(19):4445-55
references: 16177481
references: Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2010 May;10(5):667-80
references: 20384520
references: J Nucl Med. 2007 Oct;48(10):1708-14
references: 17909258
references: Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005 Dec;49(4):339-48
references: 16407817
references: Am J Physiol. 1981 Jun;240(6):H920-6
references: 7246754
references: Nat Rev Cardiol. 2010 Apr;7(4):204-15
references: 20177405
references: Circulation. 1983 Jul;68(1):190-202
references: 6851046
references: J Nucl Med. 1988 Mar;29(3):417-20
references: 3126280
references: Circulation. 2006 Mar 14;113(10):1311-25
references: 16534028
references: J Nucl Med. 1983 Jan;24(1):39-44
references: 6848702
references: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2002 Mar;55(3):392-7
references: 11870950