OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the inter-observer agreement between two experienced readers using supine vs combined supine/prone myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) in a large population. METHODS: 1,181 consecutive patients without known coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing rest (201)Tl/stress (99m)Tc-sestamibi MPS studies were evaluated. Visual reads were performed in two consecutive steps, with readers scoring the stress supine perfusion images during step 1 and rescoring the images using both supine/prone data during step 2. Visual summed stress scores (SSS) of two readers including regional scores in different vascular territories were compared. RESULTS: The specificity for both readers improved using combined supine/prone imaging (reader 1: 92% vs 86% [P = .0002], reader 2: 88% vs 72% [P < .0001]). The inter-observer correlation for SSS (0.90 vs 0.84, P < .0001) and inter-observer agreement for combined supine/prone reading (bias = 1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-1.2 vs bias = 3.1, 95% CI 2.8-3.4, P < .0001) were significantly better as compared to supine-only reading. The overall correlation between SSS scores for two readers improved with supine/prone imaging for both genders, as well as in the left anterior descending and right coronary territories. CONCLUSION: The inter-observer correlation and agreement significantly improve using two-position supine/prone vs supine-only imaging.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the inter-observer agreement between two experienced readers using supine vs combined supine/prone myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) in a large population. METHODS: 1,181 consecutive patients without known coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing rest (201)Tl/stress (99m)Tc-sestamibiMPS studies were evaluated. Visual reads were performed in two consecutive steps, with readers scoring the stress supine perfusion images during step 1 and rescoring the images using both supine/prone data during step 2. Visual summed stress scores (SSS) of two readers including regional scores in different vascular territories were compared. RESULTS: The specificity for both readers improved using combined supine/prone imaging (reader 1: 92% vs 86% [P = .0002], reader 2: 88% vs 72% [P < .0001]). The inter-observer correlation for SSS (0.90 vs 0.84, P < .0001) and inter-observer agreement for combined supine/prone reading (bias = 1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-1.2 vs bias = 3.1, 95% CI 2.8-3.4, P < .0001) were significantly better as compared to supine-only reading. The overall correlation between SSS scores for two readers improved with supine/prone imaging for both genders, as well as in the left anterior descending and right coronary territories. CONCLUSION: The inter-observer correlation and agreement significantly improve using two-position supine/prone vs supine-only imaging.
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: Peter G Danias; Alan W Ahlberg; Mark I Travin; Nicholas C Mahr; Joseph E Abreu; Dominic Marini; April Mann; Jeffrey F Mather; William E Boden; Gary V Heller Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2002 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Daniel S Berman; Xingping Kang; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Ishac Cohen; Aiden Abidov; Leslee J Shaw; Aman M Amanullah; Guido Germano; Rory Hachamovitch Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-04-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: N Matsumoto; D S Berman; P B Kavanagh; J Gerlach; S W Hayes; H C Lewin; J D Friedman; G Germano Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sean W Hayes; Andrea De Lorenzo; Rory Hachamovitch; Sanjay C Dhar; Patrick Hsu; Ishac Cohen; John D Friedman; Xingping Kang; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: S R Underwood; C Anagnostopoulos; M Cerqueira; P J Ell; E J Flint; M Harbinson; A D Kelion; A Al-Mohammad; E M Prvulovich; L J Shaw; A C Tweddel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lauren A Baldassarre; Subha V Raman; James K Min; Jennifer H Mieres; Martha Gulati; Nanette K Wenger; Thomas H Marwick; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci; C Noel Bairey Merz; Dipti Itchhaporia; Keith C Ferdinand; Carl J Pepine; Mary Norine Walsh; Jagat Narula; Leslee J Shaw Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-04
Authors: Vicente Taasan; Anita Wokhlu; Michael V Taasan; Raman S Dusaj; Ajay Mehta; Steven Kraft; David Winchester; David Wymer Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 5.952