Key result
99Tcm-DMAD did not facilitate better planar imaging compared with 99Tcm-PYP in myocardial infarction, leaving 99Tcm-PYP as the standard imaging agent.
The authors reiterate that 99Tcm-PYP remains the standard imaging agent for acute myocardial infarction compared to 99Tcm-DMAD.
We note the reference to our paper (Bell et al, 1988) in the letter by Jain et al (above) and the ensuing discussion of their work with 111In-antimyosin antibodies. We would point out that the aim of our study was to compare 99Tcm-DMAD with 99Tcm-PYP in myocardial infarction in the hope that the affinity for 99Tcm-DMAD for damaged myocardium compared with normal bone would facilitate better planar imaging. This was not the case and 99Tcm-PYP remains the standard imaging agent. We would agree that 99Tcm-PYP has limitations for the imaging of acute myocardial infarction, but it is cheap and readily available, and has the additional advantage that imaging is performed 2 h after administration. The sensitivity of 99Tcm-PYP imaging may well be improved through the use of single photon emission computed tomography.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bell et al. (1989) conducted a letter in acute myocardial infarction. 99Tcm-DMAD vs. 99Tcm-PYP was evaluated on planar imaging quality. 99Tcm-DMAD did not facilitate better planar imaging compared with 99Tcm-PYP in myocardial infarction, leaving 99Tcm-PYP as the standard imaging agent.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: