BACKGROUND: We performed a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of conventional SPECT (C-SPECT) and cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT)-SPECT systems in detecting angiographically proven coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Studies published between January 2000 and February 2018 were identified by database search. We included studies assessing C-SPECT or CZT-SPECT as a diagnostic test to evaluate patients for the presence of CAD, defined as at least 50% diameter stenosis on invasive coronary angiography. A study was eligible regardless of whether patients were referred for suspected or known CAD. RESULTS: We identified 40 eligible articles (25 C-SPECT and 15 CZT-SPECT studies) including 7334 patients (4997 in C-SPECT and 2337 in CZT-SPECT studies). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 85% and 66% for C-SPECT and 89% and 69% for CZT-SPECT imaging studies. The area under the curve was slightly higher for CZT-SPECT (0.89) compared to C-SPECT (0.83); accordingly, the summary diagnostic OR was 17 for CZT-SPECT and 11 for C-SPECT. The accuracy of the two tests slightly differs between C-SPECT and CZT-SPECT (chi-square 11.28, P < .05). At meta-regression analysis, no significant association between both sensitivity and specificity and demographical and clinical variables considered was found for C-SPECT and CZT-SPECT studies. CONCLUSIONS: C-SPECT and CZT-SPECT have good diagnostic performance in detecting angiographic proven CAD, with a slightly higher accuracy for CZT-SPECT. This result supports the use of the novel gamma cameras in clinical routine practices also considering the improvements in acquisition time and radiation exposure reduction.
BACKGROUND: We performed a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of conventional SPECT (C-SPECT) and cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT)-SPECT systems in detecting angiographically proven coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Studies published between January 2000 and February 2018 were identified by database search. We included studies assessing C-SPECT or CZT-SPECT as a diagnostic test to evaluate patients for the presence of CAD, defined as at least 50% diameter stenosis on invasive coronary angiography. A study was eligible regardless of whether patients were referred for suspected or known CAD. RESULTS: We identified 40 eligible articles (25 C-SPECT and 15 CZT-SPECT studies) including 7334 patients (4997 in C-SPECT and 2337 in CZT-SPECT studies). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 85% and 66% for C-SPECT and 89% and 69% for CZT-SPECT imaging studies. The area under the curve was slightly higher for CZT-SPECT (0.89) compared to C-SPECT (0.83); accordingly, the summary diagnostic OR was 17 for CZT-SPECT and 11 for C-SPECT. The accuracy of the two tests slightly differs between C-SPECT and CZT-SPECT (chi-square 11.28, P < .05). At meta-regression analysis, no significant association between both sensitivity and specificity and demographical and clinical variables considered was found for C-SPECT and CZT-SPECT studies. CONCLUSIONS: C-SPECT and CZT-SPECT have good diagnostic performance in detecting angiographic proven CAD, with a slightly higher accuracy for CZT-SPECT. This result supports the use of the novel gamma cameras in clinical routine practices also considering the improvements in acquisition time and radiation exposure reduction.
Authors: Roberta Green; Valeria Cantoni; Mario Petretta; Wanda Acampa; Mariarosaria Panico; Pietro Buongiorno; Giorgio Punzo; Marco Salvatore; Alberto Cuocolo Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Salim S Virani; Clifton W Callaway; Alanna M Chamberlain; Alexander R Chang; Susan Cheng; Stephanie E Chiuve; Mary Cushman; Francesca N Delling; Rajat Deo; Sarah D de Ferranti; Jane F Ferguson; Myriam Fornage; Cathleen Gillespie; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Suzanne E Judd; Daniel Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Chris T Longenecker; Pamela L Lutsey; Jason S Mackey; David B Matchar; Kunihiro Matsushita; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Martin O'Flaherty; Latha P Palaniappan; Ambarish Pandey; Dilip K Pandey; Mathew J Reeves; Matthew D Ritchey; Carlos J Rodriguez; Gregory A Roth; Wayne D Rosamond; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Gary M Satou; Svati H Shah; Nicole L Spartano; David L Tirschwell; Connie W Tsao; Jenifer H Voeks; Joshua Z Willey; John T Wilkins; Jason Hy Wu; Heather M Alger; Sally S Wong; Paul Muntner Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: W Lane Duvall; Lori B Croft; Eric S Ginsberg; Andrew J Einstein; Krista A Guma; Titus George; Milena J Henzlova Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2011-04-29 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Bernhard A Herzog; Ronny R Buechel; Ruth Katz; Michael Brueckner; Lars Husmann; Irene A Burger; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Ines Valenta; Oliver Gaemperli; Valerie Treyer; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Daniel S Berman; Xingping Kang; Balaji Tamarappoo; Arik Wolak; Sean W Hayes; Ryo Nakazato; Louise E J Thomson; Faith Kite; Ishac Cohen; Piotr J Slomka; Andrew J Einstein; John D Friedman Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-03
Authors: Johanne Neill; Elizabeth M Prvulovich; Matthews B Fish; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka; Tali Sharir; William H Martin; Marcelo F DiCarli; Jack A Ziffer; Jamshed B Bomanji; Dalia Shiti; Simona Ben-Haim Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Fabio P Esteves; Paolo Raggi; Russell D Folks; Zohar Keidar; J Wells Askew; Shmuel Rispler; Michael K O'Connor; Liudmilla Verdes; Ernest V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Andrea Baggiano; Gianpiero Italiano; Marco Guglielmo; Laura Fusini; Andrea Igoren Guaricci; Riccardo Maragna; Carlo Maria Giacari; Saima Mushtaq; Edoardo Conte; Andrea Daniele Annoni; Alberto Formenti; Maria Elisabetta Mancini; Daniele Andreini; Mark Rabbat; Mauro Pepi; Gianluca Pontone Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 4.241