PURPOSE: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores influence the pre-test likelihood of ischemia in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). We investigated the influence of CAC score knowledge on the visual interpretation of MPI in patients referred for the diagnostic work-up of suspected coronary artery disease. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed symptomatic patients who were referred for MPI. For the current analysis, we selected 151 patients who underwent SPECT MPI with simultaneous CAC scoring. MPI was visually interpreted in two separate sessions, first without and then with knowledge of the CAC score. MPI results were classified into four groups: normal, fixed defects, ischemia, and equivocal. RESULTS: Mean age of the patients was 64 ± 11 years, 56% were male. Without knowledge of the CAC score MPI was evaluated as normal in 36%, compared to 40% with knowledge of the CAC score (P = 0.636). Overall, the addition of the CAC score changed the interpretation of MPI in 56 patients (37%). Importantly, the frequency of equivocal MPI interpretations decreased from 21% without knowledge of CAC score to 9% with knowledge of CAC score (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the CAC score has a major impact on the interpretation of MPI, increasing the interpretative certainty.
PURPOSE: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores influence the pre-test likelihood of ischemia in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). We investigated the influence of CAC score knowledge on the visual interpretation of MPI in patients referred for the diagnostic work-up of suspected coronary artery disease. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed symptomatic patients who were referred for MPI. For the current analysis, we selected 151 patients who underwent SPECT MPI with simultaneous CAC scoring. MPI was visually interpreted in two separate sessions, first without and then with knowledge of the CAC score. MPI results were classified into four groups: normal, fixed defects, ischemia, and equivocal. RESULTS: Mean age of the patients was 64 ± 11 years, 56% were male. Without knowledge of the CAC score MPI was evaluated as normal in 36%, compared to 40% with knowledge of the CAC score (P = 0.636). Overall, the addition of the CAC score changed the interpretation of MPI in 56 patients (37%). Importantly, the frequency of equivocal MPI interpretations decreased from 21% without knowledge of CAC score to 9% with knowledge of CAC score (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the CAC score has a major impact on the interpretation of MPI, increasing the interpretative certainty.
Authors: Alexander G Pitman; Victor Kalff; Bruce Van Every; Borghild Risa; Leighton R Barnden; Michael J Kelly Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: R Haberl; A Becker; A Leber; A Knez; C Becker; C Lang; R Brüning; M Reiser; G Steinbeck Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kevin A Bybee; John Lee; Richard Markiewicz; Ryan Longmore; A Iain McGhie; James H O'Keefe; Bai-Ling Hsu; Kevin Kennedy; Randall C Thompson; Timothy M Bateman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-12-11 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Song-Ee Baek; Min Jung Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim; Ji Hyun Youk; Hye-Jeong Lee; Eun Ju Son Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Fabio P Esteves; Akbar Khan; Luis C L Correia; Jonathon A Nye; Raghuveer K Halkar; David M Schuster; Arthur Stillman; Paolo Raggi Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2009-11-04 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Raymond J Gibbons; Jonathan Abrams; Kanu Chatterjee; Jennifer Daley; Prakash C Deedwania; John S Douglas; T Bruce Ferguson; Stephan D Fihn; Theodore D Fraker; Julius M Gardin; Robert A O'Rourke; Richard C Pasternak; Sankey V Williams; Raymond J Gibbons; Joseph S Alpert; Elliott M Antman; Loren F Hiratzka; Valentin Fuster; David P Faxon; Gabriel Gregoratos; Alice K Jacobs; Sidney C Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Elsemiek M Engbers; Jorik R Timmer; Jan Paul Ottervanger; Mohamed Mouden; Ad H J Oostdijk; Siert Knollema; Pieter L Jager Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 5.952