BACKGROUND: Cardiac positron emission testing (PET) is more accurate than single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) at identifying coronary artery disease (CAD); however, the 2 modalities have not been thoroughly compared in a real-world setting. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 60-day catheterization outcomes and 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after the transition from a SPECT- to a PET-based myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) program. METHODS: MPI patients at Intermountain Medical Center from January 2011-December 2012 (the SPECT era, n = 6,777) and January 2014-December 2015 (the PET era, n = 7,817) were studied. Outcomes studied were 60-day coronary angiography, high-grade obstructive CAD, left main/severe 3-vessel disease, revascularization, and 1-year MACE-revascularization (MACE-revasc; death, myocardial infarction [MI], or revascularization >60 days). RESULTS: Patients were 64 ± 13 years old; 54% were male and 90% were of European descent; and 57% represented a screening population (no prior MI, revascularization, or CAD). During the PET era, compared with the SPECT era, a higher percentage of patients underwent coronary angiography (13.2% vs. 9.7%, P < 0.0001), had high-grade obstructive CAD (10.5% vs. 6.9%, P < 0.0001), had left main or severe 3-vessel disease (3.0% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.012), and had coronary revascularization (56.7% vs. 47.1%, P = 0.0001). Similar catheterization outcomes were seen when restricted to the screening population. There was no difference in 1-year MACE-revasc (PET [5.8%] vs. SPECT [5.3%], P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: The PET-based MPI program resulted in improved identification of patients with high-grade obstructive CAD, as well as a larger percentage of revascularization, thus resulting in fewer patients undergoing coronary angiography without revascularization. FUNDING: This observational study was funded using internal departmental funds.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac positron emission testing (PET) is more accurate than single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) at identifying coronary artery disease (CAD); however, the 2 modalities have not been thoroughly compared in a real-world setting. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 60-day catheterization outcomes and 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after the transition from a SPECT- to a PET-based myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) program. METHODS: MPI patients at Intermountain Medical Center from January 2011-December 2012 (the SPECT era, n = 6,777) and January 2014-December 2015 (the PET era, n = 7,817) were studied. Outcomes studied were 60-day coronary angiography, high-grade obstructive CAD, left main/severe 3-vessel disease, revascularization, and 1-year MACE-revascularization (MACE-revasc; death, myocardial infarction [MI], or revascularization >60 days). RESULTS:Patients were 64 ± 13 years old; 54% were male and 90% were of European descent; and 57% represented a screening population (no prior MI, revascularization, or CAD). During the PET era, compared with the SPECT era, a higher percentage of patients underwent coronary angiography (13.2% vs. 9.7%, P < 0.0001), had high-grade obstructive CAD (10.5% vs. 6.9%, P < 0.0001), had left main or severe 3-vessel disease (3.0% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.012), and had coronary revascularization (56.7% vs. 47.1%, P = 0.0001). Similar catheterization outcomes were seen when restricted to the screening population. There was no difference in 1-year MACE-revasc (PET [5.8%] vs. SPECT [5.3%], P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: The PET-based MPI program resulted in improved identification of patients with high-grade obstructive CAD, as well as a larger percentage of revascularization, thus resulting in fewer patients undergoing coronary angiography without revascularization. FUNDING: This observational study was funded using internal departmental funds.
Authors: Vasken Dilsizian; Stephen L Bacharach; Rob S Beanlands; Steven R Bergmann; Dominique Delbeke; Sharmila Dorbala; Robert J Gropler; Juhani Knuuti; Heinrich R Schelbert; Mark I Travin Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Joseph B Muhlestein; Donald L Lappé; Joao A C Lima; Boaz D Rosen; Heidi T May; Stacey Knight; David A Bluemke; Steven R Towner; Viet Le; Tami L Bair; Andrea L Vavere; Jeffrey L Anderson Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ibrahim Danad; Pieter G Raijmakers; Roel S Driessen; Jonathon Leipsic; Rekha Raju; Chris Naoum; Juhani Knuuti; Maija Mäki; Richard S Underwood; James K Min; Kimberly Elmore; Wynand J Stuijfzand; Niels van Royen; Igor I Tulevski; Aernout G Somsen; Marc C Huisman; Arthur A van Lingen; Martijn W Heymans; Peter M van de Ven; Cornelis van Kuijk; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Albert C van Rossum; Paul Knaapen Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Marcelo F Di Carli; Sharmila Dorbala; Jolene Meserve; Georges El Fakhri; Arkadiusz Sitek; Stephen C Moore Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Timothy M Bateman; Gary V Heller; A Iain McGhie; John D Friedman; James A Case; Jan R Bryngelson; Ginger K Hertenstein; Kelly L Moutray; Kimberly Reid; S James Cullom Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Uchechukwu K Sampson; Sharmila Dorbala; Atul Limaye; Raymond Kwong; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-02-26 Impact factor: 24.094