UNLABELLED: We compared the performance of fully automated quantification of attenuation-corrected (AC) and noncorrected (NC) myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) with the corresponding performance of experienced readers for detection of coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Rest-stress (99m)Tc-sestamibi MPS studies (n = 995; 650 consecutive cases with coronary angiography and 345 with likelihood of CAD < 5%) were obtained by MPS with AC. The total perfusion deficit (TPD) for AC and NC data was compared with the visual summed stress and rest scores of 2 experienced readers. Visual reads were performed in 4 consecutive steps with the following information progressively revealed: NC data, AC + NC data, computer results, and all clinical information. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of TPD for detection of CAD was similar to both readers (NC: 82% vs. 84%; AC: 86% vs. 85%-87%; P = not significant) with the exception of the second reader when clinical information was used (89%, P < 0.05). The receiver-operating-characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) for TPD was significantly better than visual reads for NC (0.91 vs. 0.87 and 0.89, P < 0.01) and AC (0.92 vs. 0.90, P < 0.01), and it was comparable to visual reads incorporating all clinical information. The per-vessel accuracy of TPD was superior to one reader for NC (81% vs. 77%, P < 0.05) and AC (83% vs. 78%, P < 0.05) and equivalent to the second reader (NC, 79%; and AC, 81%). The per-vessel ROC AUC for NC (0.83) and AC (0.84) for TPD was better than that for the first reader (0.78-0.80, P < 0.01) and comparable to that of the second reader (0.82-0.84, P = not significant) for all steps. CONCLUSION: For detection of ≥70% stenoses based on angiographic criteria, a fully automated computer analysis of NC and AC MPS data is equivalent for per-patient and can be superior for per-vessel analysis, when compared with expert analysis.
UNLABELLED: We compared the performance of fully automated quantification of attenuation-corrected (AC) and noncorrected (NC) myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) with the corresponding performance of experienced readers for detection of coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Rest-stress (99m)Tc-sestamibiMPS studies (n = 995; 650 consecutive cases with coronary angiography and 345 with likelihood of CAD < 5%) were obtained by MPS with AC. The total perfusion deficit (TPD) for AC and NC data was compared with the visual summed stress and rest scores of 2 experienced readers. Visual reads were performed in 4 consecutive steps with the following information progressively revealed: NC data, AC + NC data, computer results, and all clinical information. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of TPD for detection of CAD was similar to both readers (NC: 82% vs. 84%; AC: 86% vs. 85%-87%; P = not significant) with the exception of the second reader when clinical information was used (89%, P < 0.05). The receiver-operating-characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) for TPD was significantly better than visual reads for NC (0.91 vs. 0.87 and 0.89, P < 0.01) and AC (0.92 vs. 0.90, P < 0.01), and it was comparable to visual reads incorporating all clinical information. The per-vessel accuracy of TPD was superior to one reader for NC (81% vs. 77%, P < 0.05) and AC (83% vs. 78%, P < 0.05) and equivalent to the second reader (NC, 79%; and AC, 81%). The per-vessel ROC AUC for NC (0.83) and AC (0.84) for TPD was better than that for the first reader (0.78-0.80, P < 0.01) and comparable to that of the second reader (0.82-0.84, P = not significant) for all steps. CONCLUSION: For detection of ≥70% stenoses based on angiographic criteria, a fully automated computer analysis of NC and AC MPS data is equivalent for per-patient and can be superior for per-vessel analysis, when compared with expert analysis.
Authors: Thomas A Holly; Brian G Abbott; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Dennis A Calnon; Mylan C Cohen; Frank P DiFilippo; Edward P Ficaro; Michael R Freeman; Robert C Hendel; Diwakar Jain; Scott M Leonard; Kenneth J Nichols; Donna M Polk; Prem Soman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Mathew Shotwell; Balkrishna M Singh; Charlotte Fortman; Brian D Bauman; Jennifer Lukes; Myron C Gerson Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Todd D Miller; David O Hodge; Timothy F Christian; James J Milavetz; Kent R Bailey; Raymond J Gibbons Journal: Am J Med Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Yuan Xu; Paul Kavanagh; Mathews Fish; James Gerlach; Amit Ramesh; Mark Lemley; Sean Hayes; Daniel S Berman; Guido Germano; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gabriel B Grossman; Ernest V Garcia; Timothy M Bateman; Gary V Heller; Lynne L Johnson; Russell D Folks; S James Cullom; James R Galt; James A Case; Cesar A Santana; Raghuveer K Halkar Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2004 May-Jun 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: Daniel S Berman; Xingping Kang; Heidi Gransar; James Gerlach; John D Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; Rory Hachamovitch; Leslee J Shaw; Piotr J Slomka; Ling De Yang; Guido Germano Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Albert Juan Ramon; Yongyi Yang; P Hendrik Pretorius; Karen L Johnson; Michael A King; Miles N Wernick Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Julian Betancur; Frederic Commandeur; Mahsaw Motlagh; Tali Sharir; Andrew J Einstein; Sabahat Bokhari; Mathews B Fish; Terrence D Ruddy; Philipp Kaufmann; Albert J Sinusas; Edward J Miller; Timothy M Bateman; Sharmila Dorbala; Marcelo Di Carli; Guido Germano; Yuka Otaki; Balaji K Tamarappoo; Damini Dey; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-03-14