BACKGROUND: Stress-only imaging saves time and radiation exposure, but apprehension remains about the reliability, diagnostic, and prognostic accuracy of a normal stress-only study. The objective of this study was to determine the prognosis of stress-only SPECT MPI in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Patients at lower pre-test risk for CAD presenting for a Tc-99m SPECT MPI over a 2-year period underwent a stress-only protocol. If the stress images were normal (attenuation correction was routinely acquired on all patients), rest imaging was not done. Outcomes of the stress-only group were compared to a full rest-stress protocol cohort. Only patients with normal perfusion and left ventricular function, and no known CAD, were included. All-cause mortality was determined using the Social Security Death Index and specific causes of death were determined using the National Death Index. The difference in all-cause and cardiac mortality between groups in the presence of competing risks was assessed using log-normal survival models. RESULTS: Out of 10,609 patients studied during the time period, 1,673 had a normal stress-only study and 3,237 had a normal rest-stress study. At one year, there were 20 total and 3 cardiac deaths (1.2% and 0.2% mortality) in the stress-only group, and 40 total and 4 cardiac deaths (1.2% and 0.1% mortality) in the rest-stress cohort. At the end of follow-up (40 +/- 9 months), there were 46 total and 7 cardiac deaths (2.7% and 0.4% mortality) in the stress-only group, and 119 total and 17 cardiac deaths (3.7% and 0.5% mortality) in the rest-stress cohort. No significant difference between the stress-only and rest-stress cohorts was found after controlling for confounding variables for both all-cause mortality (p = .94) and cardiac mortality (p = .82). CONCLUSIONS: A normal stress-only MPI has an excellent short-term prognosis (both for all-cause and cardiac mortality) comparable to that of a normal rest-stress MPI study.
BACKGROUND: Stress-only imaging saves time and radiation exposure, but apprehension remains about the reliability, diagnostic, and prognostic accuracy of a normal stress-only study. The objective of this study was to determine the prognosis of stress-only SPECT MPI in routine clinical practice. METHODS:Patients at lower pre-test risk for CAD presenting for a Tc-99m SPECT MPI over a 2-year period underwent a stress-only protocol. If the stress images were normal (attenuation correction was routinely acquired on all patients), rest imaging was not done. Outcomes of the stress-only group were compared to a full rest-stress protocol cohort. Only patients with normal perfusion and left ventricular function, and no known CAD, were included. All-cause mortality was determined using the Social Security Death Index and specific causes of death were determined using the National Death Index. The difference in all-cause and cardiac mortality between groups in the presence of competing risks was assessed using log-normal survival models. RESULTS: Out of 10,609 patients studied during the time period, 1,673 had a normal stress-only study and 3,237 had a normal rest-stress study. At one year, there were 20 total and 3 cardiac deaths (1.2% and 0.2% mortality) in the stress-only group, and 40 total and 4 cardiac deaths (1.2% and 0.1% mortality) in the rest-stress cohort. At the end of follow-up (40 +/- 9 months), there were 46 total and 7 cardiac deaths (2.7% and 0.4% mortality) in the stress-only group, and 119 total and 17 cardiac deaths (3.7% and 0.5% mortality) in the rest-stress cohort. No significant difference between the stress-only and rest-stress cohorts was found after controlling for confounding variables for both all-cause mortality (p = .94) and cardiac mortality (p = .82). CONCLUSIONS: A normal stress-only MPI has an excellent short-term prognosis (both for all-cause and cardiac mortality) comparable to that of a normal rest-stress MPI study.
Authors: Christopher L Hansen; Richard A Goldstein; Daniel S Berman; Keith B Churchwell; C David Cooke; James R Corbett; S James Cullom; Seth T Dahlberg; James R Galt; Ravi K Garg; Gary V Heller; Mark C Hyun; Lynne L Johnson; April Mann; Benjamin D McCallister; Raymond Taillefer; R Parker Ward; John J Mahmarian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.952
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: W Lane Duvall; John A Savino; Elliot J Levine; Luke K Hermann; Lori B Croft; Milena J Henzlova Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: John J Ryan; Rupa Mehta; Thejasvi Thiruvoipati; R Parker Ward; Kim Allan Williams Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-01-19 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: 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
Authors: Ryo Nakazato; Daniel S Berman; Sean W Hayes; Mathews Fish; Richard Padgett; Yuan Xu; Mark Lemley; Rafael Baavour; Nathaniel Roth; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jane A Simonsen; Oke Gerke; Charlotte K Rask; Mohammad Tamadoni; Anders Thomassen; Søren Hess; Allan Johansen; Hans Mickley; Lisette O Jensen; Jesper Hallas; Werner Vach; Poul F Høilund-Carlsen Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 5.952