BACKGROUND: In selected patients, stress-only SPECT imaging has been proposed as an alternative to rest-stress SPECT imaging to improve laboratory efficiency and reduce radiation exposure. The impact of attenuation correction (AC) upon interpretation, post-test patient management and cardiac risk stratification in relation to stress-only imaging is not well understood. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical value for laboratory throughput and predicting outcomes of normal and abnormal stress-only SPECT imaging with AC in a consecutive series of clinically referred patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 1,383 consecutive patients who were scheduled for stress-only SPECT imaging for symptom assessment of suspected myocardial ischemia was performed. All images had been interpreted and categorized using the standard 17-segment model without AC followed by AC. Follow-up data for 2.1 ± 1.3 years after SPECT imaging for the occurrence of cardiac events (non-fatal MI, cardiac death, and cardiac revascularization) previously collected by routine methods were reviewed. RESULTS: Non-AC SPECT image interpretation revealed that 58% (802/1383) of patients had abnormal stress images. AC image interpretation of the abnormal non-AC images re-classified 83% (666/802) of these as normal. Among patients with abnormal stress images after AC (136/1383), 63% (86/136) returned for additional rest scans, while the remaining 37% (50/136) were clinically managed without further rest images. The incidence of cardiac death or non-fatal MI was very low in patients with normal stress-only scans (0.7%). CONCLUSION: A strategy of stress-only imaging with AC in symptomatic patients is an efficient method which appropriately identifies at risk and low-risk patients yielding a low percentage requiring rest imaging. Clinical decisions can be made based on abnormal stress-only imaging without further rest imaging if clinically appropriate.
BACKGROUND: In selected patients, stress-only SPECT imaging has been proposed as an alternative to rest-stress SPECT imaging to improve laboratory efficiency and reduce radiation exposure. The impact of attenuation correction (AC) upon interpretation, post-test patient management and cardiac risk stratification in relation to stress-only imaging is not well understood. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical value for laboratory throughput and predicting outcomes of normal and abnormal stress-only SPECT imaging with AC in a consecutive series of clinically referred patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 1,383 consecutive patients who were scheduled for stress-only SPECT imaging for symptom assessment of suspected myocardial ischemia was performed. All images had been interpreted and categorized using the standard 17-segment model without AC followed by AC. Follow-up data for 2.1 ± 1.3 years after SPECT imaging for the occurrence of cardiac events (non-fatal MI, cardiac death, and cardiac revascularization) previously collected by routine methods were reviewed. RESULTS: Non-AC SPECT image interpretation revealed that 58% (802/1383) of patients had abnormal stress images. AC image interpretation of the abnormal non-AC images re-classified 83% (666/802) of these as normal. Among patients with abnormal stress images after AC (136/1383), 63% (86/136) returned for additional rest scans, while the remaining 37% (50/136) were clinically managed without further rest images. The incidence of cardiac death or non-fatal MI was very low in patients with normal stress-only scans (0.7%). CONCLUSION: A strategy of stress-only imaging with AC in symptomatic patients is an efficient method which appropriately identifies at risk and low-risk patients yielding a low percentage requiring rest imaging. Clinical decisions can be made based on abnormal stress-only imaging without further rest imaging if clinically appropriate.
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: 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: Gary V Heller; Timothy M Bateman; Lynne L Johnson; S James Cullom; James A Case; James R Galt; Ernest V Garcia; Keith Haddock; Kelly L Moutray; Carlos Poston; Eli H Botvinick; Matthews B Fish; William P Follansbee; Sean Hayes; Ami E Iskandrian; John J Mahmarian; William Vandecker Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Timothy M Bateman; Gary V Heller; A Iain McGhie; Staci A Courter; Robert A Golub; James A Case; S James Cullom Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-06-23 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Sharmila Dorbala; Karthik Ananthasubramaniam; Ian S Armstrong; Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; E Gordon DePuey; Andrew J Einstein; Robert J Gropler; Thomas A Holly; John J Mahmarian; Mi-Ae Park; Donna M Polk; Raymond Russell; Piotr J Slomka; Randall C Thompson; R Glenn Wells Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Brian G Abbott; James A Case; Sharmila Dorbala; Andrew J Einstein; James R Galt; Robert Pagnanelli; Renée P Bullock-Palmer; Prem Soman; R Glenn Wells Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 5.952