OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the relationship between coronary artery calcium score (CACS) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) results for predicting the short- and long-term risk of cardiac events. BACKGROUND: The CACS and SPECT results both provide important prognostic information. It is unclear whether integrating these tests will better predict patient outcome. METHODS: We followed-up 1,126 generally asymptomatic subjects without previous cardiovascular disease who had a CACS and stress SPECT scan performed within a close time period (median 56 days). The median follow-up was 6.9 years. End points analyzed were total cardiac events and all-cause death/myocardial infarction (MI). RESULTS: An abnormal SPECT result increased with increasing CACS from <1% (CACS < or =10) to 29% (CACS >400) (p < 0.001). Total cardiac events and death/MI also increased with increasing CACS and abnormal SPECT results (p < 0.001). In subjects with a normal SPECT result, CACS added incremental prognostic information, with a 3.55-fold relative increase for any cardiac event (2.75-fold for death/MI) when the CACS was severe (>400) versus minimal (< or =10). Separation of the survival curves occurred at 3 years after initial testing for all cardiac events and at 5 years for death/MI. CONCLUSIONS: The CACS and SPECT findings are independent and complementary predictors of short- and long-term cardiac events. Despite a normal SPECT result, a severe CACS identifies subjects at high long-term cardiac risk. After a normal SPECT result, our findings support performing a CACS in patients who are at intermediate or high clinical risk for coronary artery disease to better define those who will have a high long-term risk for adverse cardiac events. 2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the relationship between coronary artery calcium score (CACS) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) results for predicting the short- and long-term risk of cardiac events. BACKGROUND: The CACS and SPECT results both provide important prognostic information. It is unclear whether integrating these tests will better predict patient outcome. METHODS: We followed-up 1,126 generally asymptomatic subjects without previous cardiovascular disease who had a CACS and stress SPECT scan performed within a close time period (median 56 days). The median follow-up was 6.9 years. End points analyzed were total cardiac events and all-cause death/myocardial infarction (MI). RESULTS: An abnormal SPECT result increased with increasing CACS from <1% (CACS < or =10) to 29% (CACS >400) (p < 0.001). Total cardiac events and death/MI also increased with increasing CACS and abnormal SPECT results (p < 0.001). In subjects with a normal SPECT result, CACS added incremental prognostic information, with a 3.55-fold relative increase for any cardiac event (2.75-fold for death/MI) when the CACS was severe (>400) versus minimal (< or =10). Separation of the survival curves occurred at 3 years after initial testing for all cardiac events and at 5 years for death/MI. CONCLUSIONS: The CACS and SPECT findings are independent and complementary predictors of short- and long-term cardiac events. Despite a normal SPECT result, a severe CACS identifies subjects at high long-term cardiac risk. After a normal SPECT result, our findings support performing a CACS in patients who are at intermediate or high clinical risk for coronary artery disease to better define those who will have a high long-term risk for adverse cardiac events. 2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
Authors: Yuan Xu; Ryo Nakazato; Sean Hayes; Rory Hachamovitch; Victor Y Cheng; Heidi Gransar; Romalisa Miranda-Peats; Mark Hyun; Leslee J Shaw; John Friedman; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: E Gordon Depuey; John J Mahmarian; Todd D Miller; Andrew J Einstein; Christopher L Hansen; Thomas A Holly; Edward J Miller; Donna M Polk; L Samuel Wann Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Robert C Hendel; Brian G Abbott; Timothy M Bateman; Ron Blankstein; Dennis A Calnon; Jeffrey A Leppo; Jamshid Maddahi; Matthew M Schumaecker; Leslee J Shaw; R Parker Ward; David G Wolinsky Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Balaji Tamarappoo; Damini Dey; Haim Shmilovich; Ryo Nakazato; Heidi Gransar; Victor Y Cheng; John D Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; Piotr J Slomka; Alan Rozanski; Daniel S Berman Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-11
Authors: Elsemiek M Engbers; Jorik R Timmer; Jan Paul Ottervanger; Mohamed Mouden; Ad H J Oostdijk; Siert Knollema; Pieter L Jager Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 5.952