OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this multicenter registry was to study the prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and the improved classification of risk in a large cohort of patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: Limited prognostic data are available for MPI with PET. METHODS: A total of 7,061 patients from 4 centers underwent a clinically indicated rest/stress rubidium-82 PET MPI, with a median follow-up of 2.2 years. The primary outcome of this study was cardiac death (n = 169), and the secondary outcome was all-cause death (n = 570). Net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination analyses were performed. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted hazard of cardiac death increased with each 10% myocardium abnormal with mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal stress PET (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.3 [95% CI: 1.4 to 3.8; p = 0.001], HR: 4.2 [95% CI: 2.3 to 7.5; p < 0.001], and HR: 4.9 [95% CI: 2.5 to 9.6; p < 0.0001], respectively [normal MPI: referent]). Addition of percent myocardium ischemic and percent myocardium scarred to clinical information (age, female sex, body mass index, history of hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking, angina, beta-blocker use, prior revascularization, and resting heart rate) improved the model performance (C-statistic 0.805 [95% CI: 0.772 to 0.838] to 0.839 [95% CI: 0.809 to 0.869]) and risk reclassification for cardiac death (NRI 0.116 [95% CI: 0.021 to 0.210]), with smaller improvements in risk assessment for all-cause death. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with known or suspected CAD, the extent and severity of ischemia and scar on PET MPI provided powerful and incremental risk estimates of cardiac death and all-cause death compared with traditional coronary risk factors.
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this multicenter registry was to study the prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and the improved classification of risk in a large cohort of patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: Limited prognostic data are available for MPI with PET. METHODS: A total of 7,061 patients from 4 centers underwent a clinically indicated rest/stress rubidium-82 PET MPI, with a median follow-up of 2.2 years. The primary outcome of this study was cardiac death (n = 169), and the secondary outcome was all-cause death (n = 570). Net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination analyses were performed. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted hazard of cardiac death increased with each 10% myocardium abnormal with mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal stress PET (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.3 [95% CI: 1.4 to 3.8; p = 0.001], HR: 4.2 [95% CI: 2.3 to 7.5; p < 0.001], and HR: 4.9 [95% CI: 2.5 to 9.6; p < 0.0001], respectively [normal MPI: referent]). Addition of percent myocardium ischemic and percent myocardium scarred to clinical information (age, female sex, body mass index, history of hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking, angina, beta-blocker use, prior revascularization, and resting heart rate) improved the model performance (C-statistic 0.805 [95% CI: 0.772 to 0.838] to 0.839 [95% CI: 0.809 to 0.869]) and risk reclassification for cardiac death (NRI 0.116 [95% CI: 0.021 to 0.210]), with smaller improvements in risk assessment for all-cause death. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with known or suspected CAD, the extent and severity of ischemia and scar on PET MPI provided powerful and incremental risk estimates of cardiac death and all-cause death compared with traditional coronary risk factors.
Authors: Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Benjamin J W Chow; Kathryn Williams; Li Chen; Robert A deKemp; Linda Garrard; Alexander Lok-Tin Szeto; May Aung; Ross A Davies; Terrence D Ruddy; Rob S B Beanlands Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-08-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael E Merhige; William J Breen; Victoria Shelton; Teresa Houston; Brian J D'Arcy; Anthony F Perna Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andrew J Einstein; Kevin W Moser; Randall C Thompson; Manuel D Cerqueira; Milena J Henzlova Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-09-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: R J Gibbons; K Chatterjee; J Daley; J S Douglas; S D Fihn; J M Gardin; M A Grunwald; D Levy; B W Lytle; R A O'Rourke; W P Schafer; S V Williams; J L Ritchie; M D Cheitlin; K A Eagle; T J Gardner; A Garson; R O Russell; T J Ryan; S C Smith Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: D S Berman; X Kang; K F Van Train; H C Lewin; I Cohen; J Areeda; J D Friedman; G Germano; L J Shaw; R Hachamovitch Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; Tracy Y Wang; John J Mahmarian; Peter L Tilkemeier; Pamela S Douglas; James A Arrighi; Elizabeth A Denton; Kathleen B Flood Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Krishna K Patel; John A Spertus; Paul S Chan; Brett W Sperry; Randall C Thompson; Firas Al Badarin; Kevin F Kennedy; James A Case; Staci Courter; Ibrahim M Saeed; A Iain McGhie; Timothy M Bateman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Vasken Dilsizian; Henry Gewirtz; Nicholas Paivanas; Anastasia N Kitsiou; Fadi G Hage; Nathan E Crone; Ronald G Schwartz Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Gregg W Stone; Judith S Hochman; David O Williams; William E Boden; T Bruce Ferguson; Robert A Harrington; David J Maron Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 24.094