Nazlı Pınar Karahan Şen1, Recep Bekiş2, Ali Ceylan3, Erkan Derebek2. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Kırklareli Government Hospital, Kırklareli-Turkey. drpinarkarahan@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir-Turkey. 3. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir-Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) is a diagnostic test which is frequently used in the diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD). MPS is generally interpreted as ischemia present or absent; however, it has a power in predicting the disease, similar to other diagnostic tests. In this study, we aimed to assist in directing the high-risk patients to undergo coronary angiography (CA) primarily by evaluating patients without prior CHD history with pre-test and post-test probabilities. METHODS: The study was designed as a retrospective study. Between January 2008 and July 2011, 139 patients with positive MPS results and followed by CA recently (<6 months) were evaluated from patient files. Patients' pre-test probabilities based on the Diamond and Forrester method and the likelihood ratios that were obtained from the literature were used to calculate the patients' post exercise and post-MPS probabilities. Patients were evaluated in risk groups as low, intermediate, and high, and an ROC curve analysis was performed for the post-MPS probabilities. RESULTS: Coronary artery stenosis (CAS) was determined in 59 patients (42.4%). A significant difference was determined between the risk groups according to CAS, both for the pre-test and post-test probabilities (p<0.001, p=0.024). The ROC analysis provided a cut-off value of 80.4% for post- MPS probability in predicting CAS with 67.9% sensitivity and 77.8% specificity. CONCLUSION: When the post-MPS probability is ≥80% in patients who have reversible perfusion defects on MPS, we suggest interpreting the MPS as "high probability positive" to improve the selection of true-positive patients to undergo CA, and these patients should be primarily recommended CA.
OBJECTIVE: Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) is a diagnostic test which is frequently used in the diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD). MPS is generally interpreted as ischemia present or absent; however, it has a power in predicting the disease, similar to other diagnostic tests. In this study, we aimed to assist in directing the high-risk patients to undergo coronary angiography (CA) primarily by evaluating patients without prior CHD history with pre-test and post-test probabilities. METHODS: The study was designed as a retrospective study. Between January 2008 and July 2011, 139 patients with positive MPS results and followed by CA recently (<6 months) were evaluated from patient files. Patients' pre-test probabilities based on the Diamond and Forrester method and the likelihood ratios that were obtained from the literature were used to calculate the patients' post exercise and post-MPS probabilities. Patients were evaluated in risk groups as low, intermediate, and high, and an ROC curve analysis was performed for the post-MPS probabilities. RESULTS:Coronary artery stenosis (CAS) was determined in 59 patients (42.4%). A significant difference was determined between the risk groups according to CAS, both for the pre-test and post-test probabilities (p<0.001, p=0.024). The ROC analysis provided a cut-off value of 80.4% for post- MPS probability in predicting CAS with 67.9% sensitivity and 77.8% specificity. CONCLUSION: When the post-MPS probability is ≥80% in patients who have reversible perfusion defects on MPS, we suggest interpreting the MPS as "high probability positive" to improve the selection of true-positive patients to undergo CA, and these patients should be primarily recommended CA.
Authors: Raymond J Gibbons; Gary J Balady; J Timothy Bricker; Bernard R Chaitman; Gerald F Fletcher; Victor F Froelicher; Daniel B Mark; Ben D McCallister; Aryan N Mooss; Michael G O'Reilly; William L Winters; Raymond J Gibbons; Elliott M Antman; Joseph S Alpert; David P Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Gabriel Gregoratos; Loren F Hiratzka; Alice K Jacobs; Richard O Russell; Sidney C Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: H William Strauss; D Douglas Miller; Mark D Wittry; Manuel D Cerqueira; Ernest V Garcia; Abdulmassi S Iskandrian; Heinrich R Schelbert; Frans J Wackers; Helena R Balon; Otto Lang; Josef Machac Journal: J Nucl Med Technol Date: 2008-08-14
Authors: Stephan D Fihn; Julius M Gardin; Jonathan Abrams; Kathleen Berra; James C Blankenship; Apostolos P Dallas; Pamela S Douglas; Joanne M Foody; Thomas C Gerber; Alan L Hinderliter; Spencer B King; Paul D Kligfield; Harlan M Krumholz; Raymond Y K Kwong; Michael J Lim; Jane A Linderbaum; Michael J Mack; Mark A Munger; Richard L Prager; Joseph F Sabik; Leslee J Shaw; Joanna D Sikkema; Craig R Smith; Sidney C Smith; John A Spertus; Sankey V Williams; Jeffrey L Anderson Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Tessa S S Genders; Ewout W Steyerberg; Hatem Alkadhi; Sebastian Leschka; Lotus Desbiolles; Koen Nieman; Tjebbe W Galema; W Bob Meijboom; Nico R Mollet; Pim J de Feyter; Filippo Cademartiri; Erica Maffei; Marc Dewey; Elke Zimmermann; Michael Laule; Francesca Pugliese; Rossella Barbagallo; Valentin Sinitsyn; Jan Bogaert; Kaatje Goetschalckx; U Joseph Schoepf; Garrett W Rowe; Joanne D Schuijf; Jeroen J Bax; Fleur R de Graaf; Juhani Knuuti; Sami Kajander; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Matthijs F L Meijs; Maarten J Cramer; Deepa Gopalan; Gudrun Feuchtner; Guy Friedrich; Gabriel P Krestin; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-03-02 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: D B Pryor; L Shaw; C B McCants; K L Lee; D B Mark; F E Harrell; L H Muhlbaier; R M Califf Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1993-01-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Marcus C de Jong; Tessa S S Genders; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Adriaan Moelker; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 5.315