Shu Yokota1, Mohamed Mouden2,3, Jan Paul Ottervanger1, Elsemiek Engbers1,4, Siert Knollema4, Jorik R Timmer1, Pieter L Jager4. 1. Department of Cardiology, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB JW, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Cardiology, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB JW, Zwolle, The Netherlands. m.mouden@isala.nl. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands. m.mouden@isala.nl. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging has proven to have prognostic importance in patients with suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD). The recently introduced ultrafast cadmium zinc telluride (CZT)-based gamma cameras have been associated with less equivocal findings and more normal interpretations, allowing stress-only imaging to be performed more often. However, it is yet unclear whether normal stress-only CZT SPECT has comparable prognostic value as normally interpreted stress-only conventional SPECT. METHODS: The study population consisted of 1,650 consecutive patients without known CAD with normal stress-only myocardial perfusion results with either conventional (n = 362) or CZT SPECT (n = 1,288). The incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and/or coronary revascularization) was compared between the conventional SPECT and CZT SPECT groups. Multivariable analyses using the Cox model were used to adjust for differences in baseline variables. RESULTS: Patients scanned with CZT were less often male (33 vs 39 %), had less often hypercholesterolaemia (41 vs 50 %) and had more often a family history of CAD (57 vs 49 %). At a median follow-up time of 37 months (interquartile range 28-45 months) MACE occurred in 68 patients. The incidence of MACE was 1.5 %/year in the CZT group, compared to 2.0 %/year in the conventional group (p = 0.08). After multivariate analyses, there was a trend to a lower incidence of MACE in the CZT SPECT group (hazard ratio 0.61, 95 % confidence interval 0.35-1.04, p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: The prognostic value of normal stress-only CZT SPECT is at least comparable and may be even better than that of normal conventional stress SPECT.
PURPOSE: Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging has proven to have prognostic importance in patients with suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD). The recently introduced ultrafast cadmium zinc telluride (CZT)-based gamma cameras have been associated with less equivocal findings and more normal interpretations, allowing stress-only imaging to be performed more often. However, it is yet unclear whether normal stress-only CZT SPECT has comparable prognostic value as normally interpreted stress-only conventional SPECT. METHODS: The study population consisted of 1,650 consecutive patients without known CAD with normal stress-only myocardial perfusion results with either conventional (n = 362) or CZT SPECT (n = 1,288). The incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and/or coronary revascularization) was compared between the conventional SPECT and CZT SPECT groups. Multivariable analyses using the Cox model were used to adjust for differences in baseline variables. RESULTS:Patients scanned with CZT were less often male (33 vs 39 %), had less often hypercholesterolaemia (41 vs 50 %) and had more often a family history of CAD (57 vs 49 %). At a median follow-up time of 37 months (interquartile range 28-45 months) MACE occurred in 68 patients. The incidence of MACE was 1.5 %/year in the CZT group, compared to 2.0 %/year in the conventional group (p = 0.08). After multivariate analyses, there was a trend to a lower incidence of MACE in the CZT SPECT group (hazard ratio 0.61, 95 % confidence interval 0.35-1.04, p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: The prognostic value of normal stress-only CZT SPECT is at least comparable and may be even better than that of normal conventional stress SPECT.
Authors: Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Allan S Jaffe; Maarten L Simoons; Bernard R Chaitman; Harvey D White; Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Harvey D White; Allan S Jaffe; Hugo A Katus; Fred S Apple; Bertil Lindahl; David A Morrow; Bernard R Chaitman; Peter M Clemmensen; Per Johanson; Hanoch Hod; Richard Underwood; Jeroen J Bax; Jeroen J Bonow; Fausto Pinto; Raymond J Gibbons; Keith A Fox; Dan Atar; L Kristin Newby; Marcello Galvani; Christian W Hamm; Barry F Uretsky; Ph Gabriel Steg; William Wijns; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Phillippe Menasche; Jan Ravkilde; E Magnus Ohman; Elliott M Antman; Lars C Wallentin; Paul W Armstrong; Maarten L Simoons; James L Januzzi; Markku S Nieminen; Mihai Gheorghiade; Gerasimos Filippatos; Russell V Luepker; Stephen P Fortmann; Wayne D Rosamond; Dan Levy; David Wood; Sidney C Smith; Dayi Hu; Jose-Luis Lopez-Sendon; Rose Marie Robertson; Douglas Weaver; Michal Tendera; Alfred A Bove; Alexander N Parkhomenko; Elena J Vasilieva; Shanti Mendis; Jeroen J Bax; Helmut Baumgartner; Claudio Ceconi; Veronica Dean; Christi Deaton; Robert Fagard; Christian Funck-Brentano; David Hasdai; Arno Hoes; Paulus Kirchhof; Juhani Knuuti; Philippe Kolh; Theresa McDonagh; Cyril Moulin; Bogdan A Popescu; Zeljko Reiner; Udo Sechtem; Per Anton Sirnes; Michal Tendera; Adam Torbicki; Alec Vahanian; Stephan Windecker; Joao Morais; Carlos Aguiar; Wael Almahmeed; David O Arnar; Fabio Barili; Kenneth D Bloch; Ann F Bolger; Hans Erik Botker; Biykem Bozkurt; Raffaele Bugiardini; Christopher Cannon; James de Lemos; Franz R Eberli; Edgardo Escobar; Mark Hlatky; Stefan James; Karl B Kern; David J Moliterno; Christian Mueller; Aleksandar N Neskovic; Burkert Mathias Pieske; Steven P Schulman; Robert F Storey; Kathryn A Taubert; Pascal Vranckx; Daniel R Wagner Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: D S Berman; R Hachamovitch; H Kiat; I Cohen; J A Cabico; F P Wang; J D Friedman; G Germano; K Van Train; G A Diamond Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ryo Nakazato; Daniel S Berman; Heidi Gransar; Mark Hyun; Romalisa Miranda-Peats; Faith C Kite; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; John D Friedman; Alan Rozanski; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 5.952
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: F U Chowdhury; S Vaidyanathan; M Bould; J Marsh; C Trickett; K Dodds; T P R Clark; R J Sapsford; C J Dickinson; C N Patel; P J Thorley Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-08-23 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Valeria Cantoni; Roberta Green; Carlo Ricciardi; Roberta Assante; Leandro Donisi; Emilia Zampella; Giuseppe Cesarelli; Carmela Nappi; Vincenzo Sannino; Valeria Gaudieri; Teresa Mannarino; Andrea Genova; Giovanni De Simini; Alessia Giordano; Adriana D'Antonio; Wanda Acampa; Mario Petretta; Alberto Cuocolo Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2021-10-16 Impact factor: 2.238