BACKGROUND: We conducted an exploratory analysis to test whether the addition of a CAC scan can increase the applicability of stress-only SPECT-MPI. METHODS: We studied 162 patients referred for rest/stress SPECT-MPI who underwent a CAC scan. Each scan was interpreted by two readers in stepwise fashion: stress-only images; addition of clinical data; and addition of CAC data. At each step, the reader was asked if rest SPECT-MPI was necessary. RESULTS: Stress-only images were interpreted as normal in 62, probably normal in 42, equivocal in 15, probably abnormal in 5, and definitely abnormal in 38 patients. Rest SPECT-MPI imaging was considered necessary, in 0% of normal studies, but in 88% of probably normal studies, and 100% of those with equivocal/abnormal studies. Addition of the clinical data did not materially change this decision. Additional consideration of the CAC scan results did not influence the deemed lack of need for a rest SPECT-MPI with normal SPECT-MPI or the necessity of rest SPECT-MPI with abnormal SPECT-MPI. However, the CAC scan reduced the deemed need for a rest SPECT-MPI in 72% with a probably normal, 47% with an equivocal, and 40% of those with a probably abnormal SPECT-MPI. CONCLUSIONS: Our exploratory analysis indicates that addition of a CAC scan to stress SPECT-MPI tends to diminish experienced readers' deemed need to perform rest SPECT-MPI studies among patients with probably normal or borderline stress-only SPECT-MPI studies. Thus, further study appears warranted to assess the utility of using CAC scanning as a means for increasing the percent of SPECT-MPI studies that can be performed as stress-only studies.
BACKGROUND: We conducted an exploratory analysis to test whether the addition of a CAC scan can increase the applicability of stress-only SPECT-MPI. METHODS: We studied 162 patients referred for rest/stress SPECT-MPI who underwent a CAC scan. Each scan was interpreted by two readers in stepwise fashion: stress-only images; addition of clinical data; and addition of CAC data. At each step, the reader was asked if rest SPECT-MPI was necessary. RESULTS: Stress-only images were interpreted as normal in 62, probably normal in 42, equivocal in 15, probably abnormal in 5, and definitely abnormal in 38 patients. Rest SPECT-MPI imaging was considered necessary, in 0% of normal studies, but in 88% of probably normal studies, and 100% of those with equivocal/abnormal studies. Addition of the clinical data did not materially change this decision. Additional consideration of the CAC scan results did not influence the deemed lack of need for a rest SPECT-MPI with normal SPECT-MPI or the necessity of rest SPECT-MPI with abnormal SPECT-MPI. However, the CAC scan reduced the deemed need for a rest SPECT-MPI in 72% with a probably normal, 47% with an equivocal, and 40% of those with a probably abnormal SPECT-MPI. CONCLUSIONS: Our exploratory analysis indicates that addition of a CAC scan to stress SPECT-MPI tends to diminish experienced readers' deemed need to perform rest SPECT-MPI studies among patients with probably normal or borderline stress-only SPECT-MPI studies. Thus, further study appears warranted to assess the utility of using CAC scanning as a means for increasing the percent of SPECT-MPI studies that can be performed as stress-only studies.
Authors: Todd C Villines; Edward A Hulten; Leslee J Shaw; Manju Goyal; Allison Dunning; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Daniel S Berman; Matthew J Budoff; Filippo Cademartiri; Tracy Q Callister; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Victor Y Cheng; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; Benjamin J W Chow; Augustin Delago; Martin Hadamitzky; Jörg Hausleiter; Philipp Kaufmann; Fay Y Lin; Erica Maffei; Gilbert L Raff; James K Min Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mohamed Mouden; Jan Paul Ottervanger; Jorik R Timmer; Stoffer Reiffers; Ad H J Oostdijk; Siert Knollema; Pieter L Jager Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2013-12-07 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Seth Uretsky; Alan Rozanski; Padmakshi Singh; Azhar Supariwala; Prashanth Atluri; Sripal Bangalore; Thomas W Pappas; Edward A Fisher; M Robert Peters Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-10-22 Impact factor: 2.357
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: Matthew J Budoff; Robyn L McClelland; Khurram Nasir; Philip Greenland; Richard A Kronmal; George T Kondos; Steven Shea; Joao A C Lima; Roger S Blumenthal Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.749
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: 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
Authors: Edgar Argulian; Jose Ricardo F Po; Seth Uretsky; Kiran K Kommaraju; Suketukumar Patel; Vikram Agarwal; Randy Cohen; Alan Rozanski Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Philip Greenland; Michael J Blaha; Matthew J Budoff; Raimund Erbel; Karol E Watson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mouaz H Al-Mallah; Timothy M Bateman; Kelley R Branch; Andrew Crean; Eric L Gingold; Randall C Thompson; Sarah E McKenney; Edward J Miller; Venkatesh L Murthy; Koen Nieman; Todd C Villines; Michael V Yester; Andrew J Einstein; John J Mahmarian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 3.872