PURPOSE: The results of stress myocardial perfusion SPECT could be enhanced by new cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) cameras, although differences compared to the results with conventional Anger cameras remain poorly known for most study protocols. This study was aimed at comparing the results of CZT and Anger SPECT according to various study protocols while taking into account the influence of obesity. METHODS: The study population, which was from three different institutions equipped with identical CZT cameras, comprised 276 patients referred for study using protocols involving (201)Tl (n = 120) or (99m)Tc-sestamibi injected at low dose at stress ((99m)Tc-Low; stress/rest 1-day protocol; n = 110) or at high dose at stress ((99m)Tc-High; rest/stress 1-day or 2-day protocol; n = 46). Each Anger SPECT scan was followed by a high-speed CZT SPECT scan (2 to 4 min). RESULTS: Agreement rates between CZT and Anger SPECT were good irrespective of the study protocol (for abnormal SPECT, (201)Tl 92 %, (99m)Tc-Low 86 %, (99m)Tc-High 98 %), although quality scores were much higher for CZT SPECT with all study protocols. Overall correlations were high for the extent of myocardial infarction (r = 0.80) and a little lower for ischaemic areas (r = 0.72), the latter being larger on Anger SPECT (p < 0.001). This larger extent was mainly observed in 50 obese patients who were in the (201)Tl or (99m)Tc-Low group and in whom stress myocardial counts were particularly low with Anger SPECT (228 ± 101 kcounts) and dramatically enhanced with CZT SPECT (+279 ± 251 %). CONCLUSION: Concordance between the results of CZT and Anger SPECT is good regardless of study protocol and especially when excluding obese patients who have low-count Anger SPECT and for whom myocardial counts are dramatically enhanced on CZT SPECT.
PURPOSE: The results of stress myocardial perfusion SPECT could be enhanced by new cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) cameras, although differences compared to the results with conventional Anger cameras remain poorly known for most study protocols. This study was aimed at comparing the results of CZT and Anger SPECT according to various study protocols while taking into account the influence of obesity. METHODS: The study population, which was from three different institutions equipped with identical CZT cameras, comprised 276 patients referred for study using protocols involving (201)Tl (n = 120) or (99m)Tc-sestamibi injected at low dose at stress ((99m)Tc-Low; stress/rest 1-day protocol; n = 110) or at high dose at stress ((99m)Tc-High; rest/stress 1-day or 2-day protocol; n = 46). Each Anger SPECT scan was followed by a high-speed CZT SPECT scan (2 to 4 min). RESULTS: Agreement rates between CZT and Anger SPECT were good irrespective of the study protocol (for abnormal SPECT, (201)Tl 92 %, (99m)Tc-Low 86 %, (99m)Tc-High 98 %), although quality scores were much higher for CZT SPECT with all study protocols. Overall correlations were high for the extent of myocardial infarction (r = 0.80) and a little lower for ischaemic areas (r = 0.72), the latter being larger on Anger SPECT (p < 0.001). This larger extent was mainly observed in 50 obesepatients who were in the (201)Tl or (99m)Tc-Low group and in whom stress myocardial counts were particularly low with Anger SPECT (228 ± 101 kcounts) and dramatically enhanced with CZT SPECT (+279 ± 251 %). CONCLUSION: Concordance between the results of CZT and Anger SPECT is good regardless of study protocol and especially when excluding obesepatients who have low-count Anger SPECT and for whom myocardial counts are dramatically enhanced on CZT SPECT.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: W Lane Duvall; Joseph M Sweeny; Lori B Croft; Maya H Barghash; Nitin K Kulkarni; Krista A Guma; Milena J Henzlova Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2011-06-03 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Sanjiv S Gambhir; Daniel S Berman; Jack Ziffer; Michael Nagler; Martin Sandler; Jim Patton; Brian Hutton; Tali Sharir; Shlomo Ben Haim; Simona Ben Haim Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michael Fiechter; Jelena R Ghadri; Silke M Kuest; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Mathias Wolfrum; Rene N Nkoulou; Robert Goetti; Oliver Gaemperli; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-07-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Akhil Kapur; Katherine A Latus; Glyn Davies; Rhanju T Dhawan; Sian Eastick; Peter H Jarritt; George Roussakis; Melanie C Young; Constantinos Anagnostopoulos; Jimmy Bomanji; Durval C Costa; Dudley J Pennell; Elizabeth M Prvulovich; Peter J Ell; S Richard Underwood Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-10-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ryo Nakazato; Balaji K Tamarappoo; Xingping Kang; Arik Wolak; Faith Kite; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; John D Friedman; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Timothy M Bateman; Gary V Heller; A Iain McGhie; John D Friedman; James A Case; Jan R Bryngelson; Ginger K Hertenstein; Kelly L Moutray; Kimberly Reid; S James Cullom Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Jorge Daniel Oldan; Linda K Shaw; Paul Hofmann; Matthew Phelan; Jeffrey Nelson; Robert Pagnanelli; Salvador Borges-Neto Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-06-27 Impact factor: 5.952