Cardiac imaging is no longer just about finding disease. It is about finding clearer answers faster.
As patient needs become more complex and operational pressures continue to grow, providers are looking for imaging solutions that can support timely diagnoses, efficient workflows, and more confident treatment decisions. That means actionable insight into coronary artery disease, myocardial blood flow, ischemia, and patient risk is becoming increasingly important.
As a result, Cardiac PET imaging is receiving increased attention, and many organizations now see it as more than an advanced imaging option only for select cases. It is becoming integral to discussions on strengthening cardiovascular care, enhancing patient experience, and advancing diagnostic imaging. In fact, industry projections suggest Cardiac PET volume could grow at an average annual rate of approximately 20% over the next five years.1
What Does Cardiac PET Show That Other Tests May Not?
Clinicians require imaging that delivers clearer and more comprehensive information.
Traditional stress testing and SPECT imaging have supported coronary artery disease evaluation for years. However, Cardiac PET combines high-quality perfusion imaging with quantitative myocardial blood flow PET data, offering insights beyond visual interpretation. This enables clinicians to assess not only the presence of perfusion abnormalities, but also blood flow to the heart muscle and the functional significance of disease.2
Known coronary artery disease, prior revascularization, diabetes, obesity, persistent symptoms, inconclusive test results, suspected multi-vessel disease, and possible microvascular dysfunction can all make cardiac evaluation more complex. In these cases, Cardiac PET’s physiologic data can help clinicians look beyond the image to better understand disease severity, patient risk, and the most appropriate next step in care.2
What Do Professional Societies Say About Cardiac PET?
The growing interest in Cardiac PET is also supported by professional society guidance.
The American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) recommends PET MPI, when available, as the preferred modality for patients who meet appropriate imaging criteria, citing its diagnostic accuracy, risk stratification capabilities, and unique quantitative measurements.3
For hospitals, health systems, and cardiology practices evaluating the future of their imaging programs, this guidance helps position Cardiac PET as more than a niche technology. It supports Cardiac PET as a clinically validated modality that can serve a broader role in myocardial perfusion imaging.
What Are the Clinical Benefits of Cardiac PET?
Cardiac PET offers significant prognostic value. 2
A key reason organizations are considering Cardiac PET imaging is its ability to support more confident clinical decisions. Compared with traditional methods, Cardiac PET’s high-resolution, attenuation-corrected images and quantitative measurements of myocardial blood flow reduce uncertainty, support more accurate diagnoses, and limit the risk of false positives or negatives.2
For physicians, this means more reliable information when determining the need for medical management, further testing, intervention, or closer follow-up. For patients, it offers a clearer path forward and fewer delays in care.
How Can Cardiac PET Improve Patient Experience and Imaging Workflow?
The case for Cardiac PET is both clinical and operational.
Hospitals and cardiology practices face scheduling pressures, staffing challenges, patient access demands, and the need for efficient care delivery. Imaging programs require modalities that improve diagnostic performance and integrate seamlessly into existing workflows.
Cardiac PET enables a more efficient imaging experience. Image acquisition takes only minutes, and full studies are often completed in under an hour. This reduces patient time in the clinic and improves throughput for imaging teams.4
Cardiac PET also delivers lower radiation exposure than traditional nuclear imaging methods such as SPECT, supporting patient safety and comfort.5
For organizations prioritizing clinical quality and operational performance, these factors make Cardiac PET an increasingly strategic consideration.
What Should Organizations Consider Before Starting a Cardiac PET Program?
While adoption methods vary, the need for a clear and practical path remains consistent.
For many practices, the question is no longer whether Cardiac PET offers clinical value, but how to evaluate the opportunity in alignment with patient volume, infrastructure, staffing, reimbursement, and long-term growth goals.
Some organizations are just beginning to explore Cardiac PET, while others are looking to expand advanced imaging capabilities, improve patient access, or establish a permanent program. As clinical demand continues to grow, organizations are also considering how evolving reimbursement policies may affect program viability and support long-term sustainability.
Who Is Evaluating Cardiac PET?
Hospitals, health systems, and cardiology practices seeking to strengthen cardiovascular imaging and support more confident clinical decision-making.
Organizations considering Cardiac PET often aim to expand advanced imaging, better serve complex or high-risk patients, address increased demand for myocardial perfusion imaging, improve patient flow and efficiency, or support long-term cardiovascular service line growth.
These goals are especially relevant for programs treating patients with obesity, diabetes, suspected multivessel disease, or possible microvascular dysfunction. Although each organization’s needs and resources vary, many see Cardiac PET as a way to enhance patient care and create a more efficient, sustainable imaging program.
How Can a Hospital, Health System, or Cardiology Practice Get Started With Cardiac PET?
As cardiac imaging continues to evolve, there is an opportunity to prepare for what comes next.
With the right partner, organizations can build a practical, scalable path toward Cardiac PET adoption and long-term growth. CDL Nuclear Technologies helps hospitals, health systems, and cardiology practices evaluate solutions aligned with their clinical priorities, operational readiness, and strategic vision for the future.
With offerings such as on-demand mobile Rubidium-82 services, Flurpiridaz F 18, mobile and fixed Cardiac PET/CT Trailers, and custom Cardiac PET/CT suites, CDL Nuclear provides flexible options for exploring, adopting, or expanding Cardiac PET.
Disclaimer: This blog is provided for informational and educational purposes only and is not intended to constitute medical, clinical, legal, regulatory, reimbursement, or operational advice. CDL Nuclear Technologies does not guarantee any specific clinical, financial, operational, reimbursement, or patient outcome based on the information provided in this blog.
Sources
IMV Medical Information Division. (2024). Cardiology diagnostic imaging report. Source note: Cardiac PET volume projections based on IMV Cardiology Diagnostic Imaging Report; Komodo; CMS; market survey; analyst reports; industry interviews; and BCG analysis.
Bateman, T. M., Dilsizian, V., Beanlands, R. S., DePuey, E. G., Heller, G. V., & Wolinsky, D. A. (2016). American Society of Nuclear Cardiology and Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging joint position statement on the clinical indications for myocardial perfusion PET. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 23(5), 1227–1231. doi:10.1007/s12350-016-0626-9
Bateman, T. M., et al. (2026). Clinical indications for positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging and myocardial blood flow quantification: An American Society of Nuclear Cardiology position statement. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 57, 102619. doi:10.1016/j.nuclcard.2025.102619
Bateman, T. M. (2012). Advantages and disadvantages of PET and SPECT in a busy clinical practice. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 19(Suppl. 1), 3–11. doi:10.1007/s12350-011-9490-9
Bateman, T. M., Heller, G. V., McGhie, A. I., Friedman, J. D., Case, J. A., Bryngelson, J. R., et al. (2006). Diagnostic accuracy of rest/stress ECG-gated Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET: Comparison with ECG-gated Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 13(1), 24–33. doi:10.1016/j.nuclcard.2005.12.004