BACKGROUND: Gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) identifies functional changes produced by ischemia, but the influence of acquisition delay on their detection is not established. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 80 patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease, gated SPECT was acquired twice: first, less than 30 minutes after peak exercise (stress 1), and second, more than 45 minutes after peak exercise (stress 2). End-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), and ejection fraction (EF) were compared with perfusion. The relationship between the DeltaEF (stress EF - resting EF) and the summed difference score (SDS) was -0.443 (P < .0001) for stress 1 and -0.416 (P < .0001) for stress 2. In stress 1, EF increased in patients without inducible ischemia (SDS = 0) (57% +/- 10% vs 54% +/- 9% at rest, P < .02) and decreased in those with an SDS of 1 or greater (53% +/- 10.8% vs 55% +/- 9.6% at rest, P < .05). In stress 2, EF was unchanged in patients without ischemia (55.8% +/- 9.7%, P = .06) and decreased in the other patients (52.8% +/- 10.2%, P < .01). In patients without ischemia, both the EDV and ESV decreased significantly in stress 1 and were unchanged in stress 2. In patients with an SDS of 1 or greater, the EDV remained unchanged and the ESV minimally decreased in stress 1, whereas both volumes clearly and significantly increased in stress 2. CONCLUSIONS: The early acquisition of postexercise gated SPECT is slightly more effective in detecting ischemia-related functional changes; however, a delayed acquisition within 60 minutes still permits the detection of functional abnormalities in most patients.
BACKGROUND: Gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) identifies functional changes produced by ischemia, but the influence of acquisition delay on their detection is not established. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 80 patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease, gated SPECT was acquired twice: first, less than 30 minutes after peak exercise (stress 1), and second, more than 45 minutes after peak exercise (stress 2). End-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), and ejection fraction (EF) were compared with perfusion. The relationship between the DeltaEF (stress EF - resting EF) and the summed difference score (SDS) was -0.443 (P < .0001) for stress 1 and -0.416 (P < .0001) for stress 2. In stress 1, EF increased in patients without inducible ischemia (SDS = 0) (57% +/- 10% vs 54% +/- 9% at rest, P < .02) and decreased in those with an SDS of 1 or greater (53% +/- 10.8% vs 55% +/- 9.6% at rest, P < .05). In stress 2, EF was unchanged in patients without ischemia (55.8% +/- 9.7%, P = .06) and decreased in the other patients (52.8% +/- 10.2%, P < .01). In patients without ischemia, both the EDV and ESV decreased significantly in stress 1 and were unchanged in stress 2. In patients with an SDS of 1 or greater, the EDV remained unchanged and the ESV minimally decreased in stress 1, whereas both volumes clearly and significantly increased in stress 2. CONCLUSIONS: The early acquisition of postexercise gated SPECT is slightly more effective in detecting ischemia-related functional changes; however, a delayed acquisition within 60 minutes still permits the detection of functional abnormalities in most patients.
Authors: G Ambrosio; S Betocchi; L Pace; M A Losi; P Perrone-Filardi; A Soricelli; F Piscione; J Taube; F Squame; M Salvatore; J L Weiss; M Chiariello Journal: Circulation Date: 1996-11-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: T Sharir; G Germano; X Kang; H C Lewin; R Miranda; I Cohen; R D Agafitei; J D Friedman; D S Berman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: E Barnes; C S Baker; D P Dutka; O Rimoldi; C A Rinaldi; P Nihoyannopoulos; P G Camici; R J Hall Journal: Heart Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: C Bacher-Stier; T Sharir; P B Kavanagh; H C Lewin; J D Friedman; R Miranda; G Germano; D S Berman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 10.057
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: W S Robertson; H Feigenbaum; W F Armstrong; J C Dillon; J O'Donnell; P W McHenry Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1983-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: F J Wackers; D S Berman; J Maddahi; D D Watson; G A Beller; H W Strauss; C A Boucher; M Picard; B L Holman; R Fridrich Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1989-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: C Marcassa; R Giubbini; W Acampa; C Cittanti; O Djepaxhija; A Gimelli; A Kokomani; G Medolago; E Milan; R Sciagrà Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 5.952