BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the automation and diagnostic performance in the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD) of the 4DMSPECT (4DM), Emory Cardiac Toolbox (EMO), and QPS systems for automated quantification of myocardial perfusion. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 328 patients referred for rest/stress Tc-99m sestamibi imaging, 140 low-likelihood patients and 188 with angiography. Contours were corrected when necessary. All other processing was fully automated. A 17-segment analysis was performed, and a summed stress score (SSS) > or =4 was considered abnormal. The average SSSs (+/-SD) for 4DM, EMO, and QPS were 10.5 +/- 9.4, 11.1 +/- 8.3, and 10.1 +/- 8.9, respectively (P = .02 for QPS versus EMO). The receiver operator characteristics areas-under-the-curve for the detection of CAD (+/-SEM) were 0.84 +/- 0.03, 0.76 +/- 0.04, and 0.88 +/- 0.03 for 4DM, EMO, and QPS, respectively (P = .001 for QPS versus EMO, and P = .03 for 4DM versus EMO). Normalcy rate was higher for QPS and 4DM versus EMO, at 91% and 94% versus 77%, respectively (P = .02). Sensitivity was higher for QPS (87%) versus 4DM (80%) (P = .045). Specificity was higher for QPS (71%) versus EMO (49%) (P = .01). The accuracy rate was higher for QPS versus 4DM and EMO, at 83% versus 77% and 76%, respectively (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in myocardial-perfusion quantification, diagnostic performance, and degree of automation of software packages.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the automation and diagnostic performance in the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD) of the 4DMSPECT (4DM), Emory Cardiac Toolbox (EMO), and QPS systems for automated quantification of myocardial perfusion. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 328 patients referred for rest/stress Tc-99m sestamibi imaging, 140 low-likelihood patients and 188 with angiography. Contours were corrected when necessary. All other processing was fully automated. A 17-segment analysis was performed, and a summed stress score (SSS) > or =4 was considered abnormal. The average SSSs (+/-SD) for 4DM, EMO, and QPS were 10.5 +/- 9.4, 11.1 +/- 8.3, and 10.1 +/- 8.9, respectively (P = .02 for QPS versus EMO). The receiver operator characteristics areas-under-the-curve for the detection of CAD (+/-SEM) were 0.84 +/- 0.03, 0.76 +/- 0.04, and 0.88 +/- 0.03 for 4DM, EMO, and QPS, respectively (P = .001 for QPS versus EMO, and P = .03 for 4DM versus EMO). Normalcy rate was higher for QPS and 4DM versus EMO, at 91% and 94% versus 77%, respectively (P = .02). Sensitivity was higher for QPS (87%) versus 4DM (80%) (P = .045). Specificity was higher for QPS (71%) versus EMO (49%) (P = .01). The accuracy rate was higher for QPS versus 4DM and EMO, at 83% versus 77% and 76%, respectively (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in myocardial-perfusion quantification, diagnostic performance, and degree of automation of software packages.
Authors: T L Faber; C D Cooke; R D Folks; J P Vansant; K J Nichols; E G DePuey; R I Pettigrew; E V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 10.057
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: L I Heller; C Cates; J Popma; L I Deckelbaum; J D Joye; S T Dahlberg; B J Villegas; A Arnold; R Kipperman; W C Grinstead; S Balcom; Y Ma; M Cleman; R M Steingart; J A Leppo Journal: Circulation Date: 1997-07-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: H J Verberne; J B Habraken; E A van Royen; M M Tiel- van Buul; J J Piek; B L van Eck-Smit; H J Verbeme Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Daniel S Berman; Aiden Abidov; Xingping Kang; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Maria G Sciammarella; Ishac Cohen; James Gerlach; Parker B Waechter; Guido Germano; Rory Hachamovitch Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.952
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: Levent A Guner; Nese Ilgin Karabacak; Tansel Cakir; Ozgur U Akdemir; Sinan A Kocaman; Atiye Cengel; Mustafa Unlu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ernest V Garcia; Cesar A Santana; Tracy L Faber; C David Cooke; Russell D Folks Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2008 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Levent A Guner; Nese Ilgin Karabacak; Ozgur U Akdemir; Pinar Senkul Karagoz; Sinan A Kocaman; Atiye Cengel; Mustafa Unlu Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Reza Arsanjani; Sean W Hayes; Mathews Fish; Aryeh Shalev; Rine Nakanishi; Louise E J Thomson; John D Friedman; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman; Piotr Slomka Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 5.952