BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) offers technical benefits compared with single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) MPI, but there has been no systematic comparison of their diagnostic accuracy for coronary artery disease. We performed a bivariate meta-analysis of the published literature to compare the sensitivity and specificity of PET versus SPECT stress MPI for ≥50% stenosis of any epicardial coronary artery in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception through January 2012 and the references of identified studies for prospective, English language studies that evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of PET and/or SPECT MPI with coronary angiography as the reference standard and reported sufficient data to calculate patient-level true and false positives and negatives. Two investigators independently extracted patient and study characteristics; a third investigator resolved any disagreements. We identified 117 studies, including 108 evaluating SPECT MPI, 4 evaluating PET MPI, and 5 evaluating both modalities. Bivariate meta-analysis demonstrated a significantly higher pooled mean sensitivity with PET (92.6% [95% Confidence Interval, 88.3% to 95.5%]) compared with SPECT (88.3% [95% confidence interval, 86.4% to 90.0%]) (P=0.035). No significant difference in specificity was observed between PET (81.3% [95% confidence interval, 66.6% to 90.4%]) and SPECT (75.8% [95% confidence interval, 72.1% to 79.1%]) (P=0.39). Few studies investigated coronary angiography with PET. Only 5 studies directly compared SPECT and PET. CONCLUSIONS: In a meta-analysis of 11,862 patients, PET MPI demonstrated a higher sensitivity for coronary artery disease than SPECT MPI. No difference in specificity was detected in the pooled analysis of PET and SPECT MPI.
BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) offers technical benefits compared with single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) MPI, but there has been no systematic comparison of their diagnostic accuracy for coronary artery disease. We performed a bivariate meta-analysis of the published literature to compare the sensitivity and specificity of PET versus SPECT stress MPI for ≥50% stenosis of any epicardial coronary artery in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception through January 2012 and the references of identified studies for prospective, English language studies that evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of PET and/or SPECT MPI with coronary angiography as the reference standard and reported sufficient data to calculate patient-level true and false positives and negatives. Two investigators independently extracted patient and study characteristics; a third investigator resolved any disagreements. We identified 117 studies, including 108 evaluating SPECT MPI, 4 evaluating PET MPI, and 5 evaluating both modalities. Bivariate meta-analysis demonstrated a significantly higher pooled mean sensitivity with PET (92.6% [95% Confidence Interval, 88.3% to 95.5%]) compared with SPECT (88.3% [95% confidence interval, 86.4% to 90.0%]) (P=0.035). No significant difference in specificity was observed between PET (81.3% [95% confidence interval, 66.6% to 90.4%]) and SPECT (75.8% [95% confidence interval, 72.1% to 79.1%]) (P=0.39). Few studies investigated coronary angiography with PET. Only 5 studies directly compared SPECT and PET. CONCLUSIONS: In a meta-analysis of 11,862 patients, PET MPI demonstrated a higher sensitivity for coronary artery disease than SPECT MPI. No difference in specificity was detected in the pooled analysis of PET and SPECT MPI.
Authors: Maria Sciammarella; Uttam M Shrestha; Youngho Seo; Grant T Gullberg; Elias H Botvinick Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Tonghe Wang; Yang Lei; Yabo Fu; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu; Jonathon A Nye; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: Phys Med Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Stacey Knight; David B Min; Viet T Le; Kent G Meredith; Ritesh Dhar; Santanu Biswas; Kurt R Jensen; Steven M Mason; Jon-David Ethington; Donald L Lappe; Joseph B Muhlestein; Jeffrey L Anderson; Kirk U Knowlton Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2018-05-03