BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare normal limits and the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD) with attenuation-corrected (AC) and non-attenuation-corrected (NC) myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (MPS) by use of a recently improved automated quantification technique. METHODS AND RESULTS: We acquired 415 rest/stress technetium 99m MPS studies on a Vertex dual-detector camera with a gadolinium 153 line source (Vantage Pro). Gender-specific NC, AC, and gender-combined AC normal limits were created from rest/stress images of 50 women and 50 men with a low likelihood of CAD (< 5%) and a median body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 in each gender group. BMI-specific normal limits (< 30 kg/m2 and > or = 30 kg/m2) were also compared. Total perfusion deficit and 17-segment summed scores in 174 patients were compared with angiography, and normalcy rates were established from 141 studies of low-likelihood patients. There were no differences between low-BMI and high-BMI normal limits for AC or NC studies. Male and female normal limits differed in 12 of 17 segments for NC stress studies and in 3 of 17 segments for AC stress studies (P < .01). The sensitivity, specificity, and normalcy rates for stenoses with 70% narrowing or greater were 89%, 73%, and 91%, respectively, for NC studies and 87%, 80%, and 95%, respectively, for AC studies (P = not significant). CONCLUSION: Automated detection of CAD by AC and NC MPS demonstrated similar sensitivity, specificity, and normalcy rates. Some gender differences were noted for AC normal limits.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare normal limits and the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD) with attenuation-corrected (AC) and non-attenuation-corrected (NC) myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (MPS) by use of a recently improved automated quantification technique. METHODS AND RESULTS: We acquired 415 rest/stress technetium 99m MPS studies on a Vertex dual-detector camera with a gadolinium 153 line source (Vantage Pro). Gender-specific NC, AC, and gender-combined AC normal limits were created from rest/stress images of 50 women and 50 men with a low likelihood of CAD (< 5%) and a median body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 in each gender group. BMI-specific normal limits (< 30 kg/m2 and > or = 30 kg/m2) were also compared. Total perfusion deficit and 17-segment summed scores in 174 patients were compared with angiography, and normalcy rates were established from 141 studies of low-likelihood patients. There were no differences between low-BMI and high-BMI normal limits for AC or NC studies. Male and female normal limits differed in 12 of 17 segments for NC stress studies and in 3 of 17 segments for AC stress studies (P < .01). The sensitivity, specificity, and normalcy rates for stenoses with 70% narrowing or greater were 89%, 73%, and 91%, respectively, for NC studies and 87%, 80%, and 95%, respectively, for AC studies (P = not significant). CONCLUSION: Automated detection of CAD by AC and NC MPS demonstrated similar sensitivity, specificity, and normalcy rates. Some gender differences were noted for AC normal limits.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Waren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Piotr J Slomka; Hidetaka Nishina; Daniel S Berman; Cigdem Akincioglu; Aiden Abidov; John D Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Guido Germano Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Randall C Thompson; Gary V Heller; Lynne L Johnson; James A Case; S James Cullom; Ernest V Garcia; Philip G Jones; Kelly L Moutray; Timothy M Bateman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Yasmin Masood; Yi-Hwa Liu; Gordon Depuey; Raymond Taillefer; Luis I Araujo; Steven Allen; Dominique Delbeke; Frank Anstett; Aharon Peretz; Mary-Jo Zito; Vera Tsatkin; Frans J Th Wackers Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: G Germano; H Kiat; P B Kavanagh; M Moriel; M Mazzanti; H T Su; K F Van Train; D S Berman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1995-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: J M Links; L C Becker; P Rigo; R Taillefer; L Hanelin; F Anstett; D Burckhardt; L Mixon Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2000 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Gary V Heller; Timothy M Bateman; Lynne L Johnson; S James Cullom; James A Case; James R Galt; Ernest V Garcia; Keith Haddock; Kelly L Moutray; Carlos Poston; Eli H Botvinick; Matthews B Fish; William P Follansbee; Sean Hayes; Ami E Iskandrian; John J Mahmarian; William Vandecker Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Piotr J Slomka; Hidetaka Nishina; Daniel S Berman; Xingping Kang; John D Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Usaf E Aladl; Guido Germano Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jonathan W Weinsaft; Christopher L Gade; Franklin J Wong; Han W Kim; James K Min; Shant J Manoushagian; Peter M Okin; Massimiliano Szulc Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Gabriella Vincenti; René Nkoulou; Charles Steiner; Hestia Imperiano; Giuseppe Ambrosio; François Mach; Osman Ratib; Jean-Paul Vallee; Thomas H Schindler Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-06-02 Impact factor: 5.952