A report on an unusual case of pericardial effusion and tamponade that was found incidentally on myocardial perfusion imaging. This was later confirmed by echocardiography and subsequently treated with pericardiocentesis. Two-dimensional echocardiography is still the "gold standard" for diagnosing pericardial effusion. Nuclear cardiac imaging will probably never have a primary role in the diagnosis of pericardial effusion. However, it may be helpful when the diagnosis of pericardial effusion has not been considered and when this condition is suggested by nuclear imaging findings. The echocardiogram underestimated the amount of pericardial effusion compared to myocardial perfusion imaging in this case, and in contrast to previous published reports. Further, prospective studies need to focus on the sensitivity and specificity of sestamibi nuclear scans in the qualitative and quantitative assessment of pericardial effusions.

No abstract

We present an interesting case of a fractured osteophyte causing back pain that was demonstrated both on bone single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and computed tomography (CT). The magnetic resonance images, thoracic anterior spine plain radiograph, whole-body bone scan passes, and thoracic spot view were not impressive. Bone SPECT was the impetus for getting the CT scan. The CT scan not only demonstrated the osteophyte but a pseudarthrosis that was probably causing the pain. If it were not for the positive SPECT bone scan, the CT scan would not have been ordered after unimpressive magnetic resonance imaging.