BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in patients with remote prior myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 1413 consecutive patients with remote prior MI who underwent rest-stress myocardial perfusion SPECT. Semiquantitative visual analysis of 20 SPECT segments was used to define the summed stress, rest, and difference scores. The number of non-reversible segments was used as an index of infarct size. During follow-up (>or=1 year), 118 hard events occurred: 64 cardiac deaths (CDs) and 54 recurrent MIs. Annual CD and hard event rates increased significantly as a function of SPECT abnormality. For summed stress scores less than 4, 4 to 8, 9 to 13, and more than 13, the annual CD rates were 0.4%, 0.9%, 1.7%, and 3.5%, respectively (P =.002). Patients with small MI (<4 non-reversible segments) and no or mild ischemia (summed difference score <or=6) had an annual CD rate of 0.6%. Patients with small MI and moderate or severe ischemia had an annual CD rate of 1.6%, and those with large MI (>or=4 non-reversible segments) had moderate to high annual CD rates (3.7%-6.6%) regardless of the extent of ischemia. Nuclear testing added incremental prognostic information to pre-scan information. Compared with a strategy in which all patients are referred to catheterization, a strategy that referred only those patients with a risk for CD of greater than 1% by myocardial perfusion SPECT resulted in a 41.6% cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial perfusion SPECT adds incremental value to pre-scan information and is highly predictive and cost-efficient in the risk stratification of patients with remote prior MI. Patients with normal or mildly abnormal scan results or small MI in combination with absent or mild ischemia have a low risk for CD.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in patients with remote prior myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 1413 consecutive patients with remote prior MI who underwent rest-stress myocardial perfusion SPECT. Semiquantitative visual analysis of 20 SPECT segments was used to define the summed stress, rest, and difference scores. The number of non-reversible segments was used as an index of infarct size. During follow-up (>or=1 year), 118 hard events occurred: 64 cardiac deaths (CDs) and 54 recurrent MIs. Annual CD and hard event rates increased significantly as a function of SPECT abnormality. For summed stress scores less than 4, 4 to 8, 9 to 13, and more than 13, the annual CD rates were 0.4%, 0.9%, 1.7%, and 3.5%, respectively (P =.002). Patients with small MI (<4 non-reversible segments) and no or mild ischemia (summed difference score <or=6) had an annual CD rate of 0.6%. Patients with small MI and moderate or severe ischemia had an annual CD rate of 1.6%, and those with large MI (>or=4 non-reversible segments) had moderate to high annual CD rates (3.7%-6.6%) regardless of the extent of ischemia. Nuclear testing added incremental prognostic information to pre-scan information. Compared with a strategy in which all patients are referred to catheterization, a strategy that referred only those patients with a risk for CD of greater than 1% by myocardial perfusion SPECT resulted in a 41.6% cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial perfusion SPECT adds incremental value to pre-scan information and is highly predictive and cost-efficient in the risk stratification of patients with remote prior MI. Patients with normal or mildly abnormal scan results or small MI in combination with absent or mild ischemia have a low risk for CD.
Authors: L J Shaw; R Hachamovitch; D S Berman; T H Marwick; M S Lauer; G V Heller; A E Iskandrian; K L Kesler; M I Travin; H C Lewin; R C Hendel; S Borges-Neto; D D Miller Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: R Hachamovitch; D S Berman; L J Shaw; H Kiat; I Cohen; J A Cabico; J Friedman; G A Diamond Journal: Circulation Date: 1998-02-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: D S Berman; R Hachamovitch; H Kiat; I Cohen; J A Cabico; F P Wang; J D Friedman; G Germano; K Van Train; G A Diamond Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: D S Berman; H Kiat; J D Friedman; F P Wang; K van Train; L Matzer; J Maddahi; G Germano Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1993-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: D S Berman; X Kang; K F Van Train; H C Lewin; I Cohen; J Areeda; J D Friedman; G Germano; L J Shaw; R Hachamovitch Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: D B Mark; L Shaw; F E Harrell; M A Hlatky; K L Lee; J R Bengtson; C B McCants; R M Califf; D B Pryor Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-09-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Abdou Elhendy; Arend F L Schinkel; Ron T van Domburg; Jeroen J Bax; Roelf Valkema; Don Poldermans Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2004 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Yves G C J America; Jeroen J Bax; Eric Boersma; Marcel Stokkel; Ernst E van der Wall Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 5.952