J D van Dijk1, J A van Dalen2, S Knollema3, M Mouden4, J P Ottervanger4, P L Jager3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Isala Hospital, PO Box 10400, 8000 GK, Zwolle, The Netherlands. jorisvdijk@gmail.com. 2. Department of Medical Physics, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Isala Hospital, PO Box 10400, 8000 GK, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Cardiology, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Guidelines propose different rest-stress activity ratios (RSAR) for one-day stress-first SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), but evidence is limited. Our aim was to determine and validate the minimal RSAR resulting in the same diagnostic outcome in one-day stress-first SPECT MPI. METHODS: Forty-seven patients referred for rest after stress CZT-SPECT/CT MPI were prospectively included. Rest acquisitions were performed 3 h after stress. In addition to the stress and rest acquisitions, the first 22 patients underwent an additional acquisition prior to the rest injection to determine the remaining stress activity. Next, we simulated six RSARs varying from 1.0 to 3.5 in both patients and a phantom and compared the images to those using the reference RSAR of 4.0. Differences in summed difference score (SDS) >2 or ischemic defect interpretation were considered to significantly influence diagnostic outcome. After deriving the minimal RSAR, it was validated in 25 additional patients by comparing it to a RSAR of 4.0. RESULTS: After 3 h only 26% of the stress activity was still present in the myocardium. SDS differences >2 were found in one (4%) patient using RSAR of 3.5, 2.5 and 2.0, in three (12%) using 1.5 and in five (20%) using SRAR of 1.0. These results were consistent with the phantom study showing SDS differences >2 for RSARs ≤1.5 and with the visual interpretation which showed an increased number of deviating scans for RSAR 1.0. Validating the RSAR of 2.0 resulted in a different SDS in one patient (SDS of 30 versus 11). Moreover, two scans were interpreted as ischemic instead of normal when using RSAR 2.0 and in two other scans the opposite was the case. CONCLUSIONS: A RSAR of 2.0 in one-day stress-first MPI SPECT seems sufficient to obtain accurate diagnostic outcomes and is therefore recommended to reduce radiation exposure.
PURPOSE: Guidelines propose different rest-stress activity ratios (RSAR) for one-day stress-first SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), but evidence is limited. Our aim was to determine and validate the minimal RSAR resulting in the same diagnostic outcome in one-day stress-first SPECT MPI. METHODS: Forty-seven patients referred for rest after stress CZT-SPECT/CT MPI were prospectively included. Rest acquisitions were performed 3 h after stress. In addition to the stress and rest acquisitions, the first 22 patients underwent an additional acquisition prior to the rest injection to determine the remaining stress activity. Next, we simulated six RSARs varying from 1.0 to 3.5 in both patients and a phantom and compared the images to those using the reference RSAR of 4.0. Differences in summed difference score (SDS) >2 or ischemic defect interpretation were considered to significantly influence diagnostic outcome. After deriving the minimal RSAR, it was validated in 25 additional patients by comparing it to a RSAR of 4.0. RESULTS: After 3 h only 26% of the stress activity was still present in the myocardium. SDS differences >2 were found in one (4%) patient using RSAR of 3.5, 2.5 and 2.0, in three (12%) using 1.5 and in five (20%) using SRAR of 1.0. These results were consistent with the phantom study showing SDS differences >2 for RSARs ≤1.5 and with the visual interpretation which showed an increased number of deviating scans for RSAR 1.0. Validating the RSAR of 2.0 resulted in a different SDS in one patient (SDS of 30 versus 11). Moreover, two scans were interpreted as ischemic instead of normal when using RSAR 2.0 and in two other scans the opposite was the case. CONCLUSIONS: A RSAR of 2.0 in one-day stress-first MPI SPECT seems sufficient to obtain accurate diagnostic outcomes and is therefore recommended to reduce radiation exposure.
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: Thomas A Holly; Brian G Abbott; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Dennis A Calnon; Mylan C Cohen; Frank P DiFilippo; Edward P Ficaro; Michael R Freeman; Robert C Hendel; Diwakar Jain; Scott M Leonard; Kenneth J Nichols; Donna M Polk; Prem Soman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Rene Nkoulou; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Silke M Kuest; Jelena R Ghadri; Mathias Wolfrum; Lars Husmann; Michael Fiechter; Ronny R Buechel; Bernhard A Herzog; Pascal Koepfli; Cyrill Burger; Oliver Gaemperli; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Albert Flotats; Juhani Knuuti; Matthias Gutberlet; Claudio Marcassa; Frank M Bengel; Philippe A Kaufmann; Michael R Rees; Birger Hesse Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: William D Leslie; Shawn A Tully; Marina S Yogendran; Linda M Ward; Khaled A Nour; Colleen J Metge Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Daniel S Berman; Aiden Abidov; Xingping Kang; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Maria G Sciammarella; Ishac Cohen; James Gerlach; Parker B Waechter; Guido Germano; Rory Hachamovitch Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Yuan Xu; Sean Hayes; Iftikhar Ali; Terrence D Ruddy; R Glenn Wells; Daniel S Berman; Guido Germano; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-10-21 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Daniel S Berman; Xingping Kang; Heidi Gransar; James Gerlach; John D Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; Rory Hachamovitch; Leslee J Shaw; Piotr J Slomka; Ling De Yang; Guido Germano Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 5.952
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