PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of automated quantitative hypoperfusion parameters derived from adenosine stress myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) for predicting sudden or cardiac death (CD) in case-controlled patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: We considered patients with available adenosine stress Tc-99m sestamibi MPS scans and follow-up information. 81 CD patients from a registry of 428 patients documented by the National Death Index were directly matched in a retrospective case-control design to patients without CD by key clinical parameters (age by deciles, gender, no early revascularization, pre-test likelihood categories, diabetes, and chest pain symptoms). Multivariable analysis of stress MPS total perfusion deficit (STPD) and major clinical confounders were used as predictors of CD. Visual 17-segment summed stress segmental scores (VSSS) obtained by an expert reader, were compared to STPD. RESULTS: CD patients had higher stress hypoperfusion measures compared to controls [STPD: 7.0% vs 3.6% (P < .05), VSSS: 5.3 vs 2.1 (P < .05)]. By univariate analysis, STPD and VSSS have similar predictive power (the areas under receiver operator characteristics curves: STPD = 0.64, VSSS = 0.63; Kaplan-Meier models: χ(2) = 7.59, P = .0059 for STPD and χ(2) = 11.10, P = .0009 for VSSS). The multiple Cox proportional hazards regression models with continuous perfusion measures showed that STPD had similar power to normalized VSSS as a predictor for CD (χ(2) = 4.92; P = .027) vs (χ(2) = 8.90; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative analysis is comparable to expert visual scoring in predicting CD in a case-controlled study.
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of automated quantitative hypoperfusion parameters derived from adenosine stress myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) for predicting sudden or cardiac death (CD) in case-controlled patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: We considered patients with available adenosine stress Tc-99m sestamibiMPS scans and follow-up information. 81 CDpatients from a registry of 428 patients documented by the National Death Index were directly matched in a retrospective case-control design to patients without CD by key clinical parameters (age by deciles, gender, no early revascularization, pre-test likelihood categories, diabetes, and chest pain symptoms). Multivariable analysis of stress MPS total perfusion deficit (STPD) and major clinical confounders were used as predictors of CD. Visual 17-segment summed stress segmental scores (VSSS) obtained by an expert reader, were compared to STPD. RESULTS:CDpatients had higher stress hypoperfusion measures compared to controls [STPD: 7.0% vs 3.6% (P < .05), VSSS: 5.3 vs 2.1 (P < .05)]. By univariate analysis, STPD and VSSS have similar predictive power (the areas under receiver operator characteristics curves: STPD = 0.64, VSSS = 0.63; Kaplan-Meier models: χ(2) = 7.59, P = .0059 for STPD and χ(2) = 11.10, P = .0009 for VSSS). The multiple Cox proportional hazards regression models with continuous perfusion measures showed that STPD had similar power to normalized VSSS as a predictor for CD (χ(2) = 4.92; P = .027) vs (χ(2) = 8.90; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative analysis is comparable to expert visual scoring in predicting CD in a case-controlled study.
Authors: Aju P Pazhenkottil; Jelena-Rima Ghadri; Rene N Nkoulou; Mathias Wolfrum; Ronny R Buechel; Silke M Küest; Lars Husmann; Bernhard A Herzog; Oliver Gaemperli; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 10.057
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: 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: R Hachamovitch; D S Berman; H Kiat; I Cohen; H Lewin; A Amanullah; X Kang; J Friedman; G A Diamond Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1997-08-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Yuan Xu; Sean Hayes; Iftikhar Ali; Terrence D Ruddy; R Glenn Wells; Daniel S Berman; Guido Germano; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-10-21 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: A T Weiss; D S Berman; A S Lew; J Nielsen; B Potkin; H J Swan; A Waxman; J Maddahi Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1987-04 Impact factor: 24.094
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: K F Van Train; E V Garcia; J Maddahi; J Areeda; C D Cooke; H Kiat; G Silagan; R Folks; J Friedman; L Matzer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1994-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Nicole E Worden; Paul D Lindower; Trudy L Burns; Kanu Chatterjee; Robert M Weiss Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Manish Motwani; William D Leslie; Andrew L Goertzen; Yuka Otaki; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Ryo Nakazato; Daniel S Berman; Heidi Gransar; Mark Hyun; Romalisa Miranda-Peats; Faith C Kite; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; John D Friedman; Alan Rozanski; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: W Lane Duvall; Piotr J Slomka; Jim R Gerlach; Joseph M Sweeny; Usman Baber; Lori B Croft; Krista A Guma; Titus George; Milena J Henzlova Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 5.952