BACKGROUND: We measured myocardial blood flow (MBF) and perfusion reserve (MPR) by dynamic CZT-SPECT and 82Rb-PET in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD) and compared the accuracy of the two methods in predicting obstructive CAD. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with available coronary angiography data underwent 99mTc-sestamibi CZT-SPECT and 82Rb-PET cardiac imaging. Stress and rest MBF and MPR were calculated by both methods and compared. Diagnostic accuracies of CZT-SPECT and PET were also assessed using a receiver-operator-characteristic curve. RESULTS: CZT-SPECT yielded similar baseline MBF, but higher hyperemic MBF and MPR values compared to PET. There was a modest correlation between the two methods for MPR (r = 0.56, P < .01). MPR by CZT-SPECT showed a good ability in identify a reduced MPR by PET, with an area under the curve of 0.85. A MPR cut-off of 2.5 was identified by CZT-SPECT for detection of abnormal MPR by PET, with a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 86%, 73% and 80%. The area under the curve for the identification of obstructive CAD by regional MPR were 0.83 for CZT-SPECT and 0.84 for PET (P = .90). At CZT-SPECT, a regional MPR of 2.1 provided the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity for identifying obstructive CAD. Diagnostic accuracy of CZT-SPECT and PET using respective cut-off values was comparable (P = .62). CONCLUSION: Hyperemic MBF and MPR values obtained by CZT-SPECT are higher than those measured by 82Rb-PET imaging, with a moderate correlation between the two methods. CZT-SPECT shows good diagnostic accuracy for the identification of obstructive CAD. These findings may encourage the use of this new technique to a better risk stratification and patient management.
BACKGROUND: We measured myocardial blood flow (MBF) and perfusion reserve (MPR) by dynamic CZT-SPECT and 82Rb-PET in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD) and compared the accuracy of the two methods in predicting obstructive CAD. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with available coronary angiography data underwent 99mTc-sestamibi CZT-SPECT and 82Rb-PET cardiac imaging. Stress and rest MBF and MPR were calculated by both methods and compared. Diagnostic accuracies of CZT-SPECT and PET were also assessed using a receiver-operator-characteristic curve. RESULTS: CZT-SPECT yielded similar baseline MBF, but higher hyperemic MBF and MPR values compared to PET. There was a modest correlation between the two methods for MPR (r = 0.56, P < .01). MPR by CZT-SPECT showed a good ability in identify a reduced MPR by PET, with an area under the curve of 0.85. A MPR cut-off of 2.5 was identified by CZT-SPECT for detection of abnormal MPR by PET, with a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 86%, 73% and 80%. The area under the curve for the identification of obstructive CAD by regional MPR were 0.83 for CZT-SPECT and 0.84 for PET (P = .90). At CZT-SPECT, a regional MPR of 2.1 provided the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity for identifying obstructive CAD. Diagnostic accuracy of CZT-SPECT and PET using respective cut-off values was comparable (P = .62). CONCLUSION: Hyperemic MBF and MPR values obtained by CZT-SPECT are higher than those measured by 82Rb-PET imaging, with a moderate correlation between the two methods. CZT-SPECT shows good diagnostic accuracy for the identification of obstructive CAD. These findings may encourage the use of this new technique to a better risk stratification and patient management.
Authors: Konstantin V Zavadovsky; Andrew V Mochula; Alla A Boshchenko; Alexander V Vrublevsky; Andrew E Baev; Alexander L Krylov; Marina O Gulya; Evgeny A Nesterov; Riccardo Liga; Alessia Gimelli Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Thais R Peclat; Ana Carolina do A H de Souza; Victor F Souza; Aline M K Nakamoto; Felipe M Neves; Izabella C R Silva; Ronaldo S L Lima Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Ana Carolina do A H de Souza; Hendrik J Harms; Laurel Martell; Courtney Bibbo; Meagan Harrington; Kyle Sullivan; Jon Hainer; Sharmila Dorbala; Ron Blankstein; Viviany R Taqueti; Marie Foley Kijewski; Mi-Ae Park; Alejandro Meretta; Christopher Breault; Nathaniel Roth; Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; Prem Soman; Grant T Gullberg; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 8.589
Authors: Vladimir V Shipulin; Sergey L Andreev; Andrew S Pryakhin; Andrew V Mochula; Alina N Maltseva; Svetlana I Sazonova; Vladimir M Shipulin; Samia Massalha; Konstantin V Zavadovsky Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-02-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Matthieu Bailly; Frédérique Thibault; Maxime Courtehoux; Gilles Metrard; Denis Angoulvant; Maria Joao Ribeiro Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2021-06-04