Edward P Ficaro1,2, Venkatesh L Murthy2, Jennifer M Renaud3, Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière1, Tomoe Hagio1, Jonathan B Moody1, Liliana Arida-Moody2. 1. INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions, 3025 Boardwalk Dr., Suite 200, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108, USA. 2. Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine (Department of Internal Medicine) and Division of Nuclear Medicine (Department of Radiology), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions, 3025 Boardwalk Dr., Suite 200, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108, USA. jrenaud@inviasolutions.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: PET myocardial flow reserve (MFR) has established diagnostic and prognostic value. Technological advances have now enabled SPECT MFR quantification. We investigated whether SPECT MFR precision is sufficient for clinical categorization of patients. METHODS: Validation studies vs invasive flow measurements and PET MFR were reviewed to determine global SPECT MFR thresholds. Studies vs PET and a SPECT MFR repeatability study were used to establish imprecision in SPECT MFR measurements as the standard deviation of the difference between SPECT and PET MFR, or test-retest SPECT MFR. Simulations were used to evaluate the impact of SPECT MFR imprecision on confidence of clinically relevant categorization. RESULTS: Based on validation studies, the typical PET MFR categories were used for SPECT MFR classification (< 1.5, 1.5-2.0, > 2.0). Imprecision vs PET MFR ranged from 0.556 to 0.829, and test-retest imprecision was 0.781-0.878. Simulations showed correct classification of up to only 34% of patients when 1.5 ≤ true MFR ≤ 2.0. Categorization with high confidence (> 80%) was only achieved for extreme MFR values (< 1.0 or > 2.5), with correct classification in only 15% of patients in a typical lab with MFR of 1.8 ± 0.5. CONCLUSIONS: Current SPECT-derived estimates of MFR lack precision and require further optimization for clinical risk stratification.
BACKGROUND: PET myocardial flow reserve (MFR) has established diagnostic and prognostic value. Technological advances have now enabled SPECT MFR quantification. We investigated whether SPECT MFR precision is sufficient for clinical categorization of patients. METHODS: Validation studies vs invasive flow measurements and PET MFR were reviewed to determine global SPECT MFR thresholds. Studies vs PET and a SPECT MFR repeatability study were used to establish imprecision in SPECT MFR measurements as the standard deviation of the difference between SPECT and PET MFR, or test-retest SPECT MFR. Simulations were used to evaluate the impact of SPECT MFR imprecision on confidence of clinically relevant categorization. RESULTS: Based on validation studies, the typical PET MFR categories were used for SPECT MFR classification (< 1.5, 1.5-2.0, > 2.0). Imprecision vs PET MFR ranged from 0.556 to 0.829, and test-retest imprecision was 0.781-0.878. Simulations showed correct classification of up to only 34% of patients when 1.5 ≤ true MFR ≤ 2.0. Categorization with high confidence (> 80%) was only achieved for extreme MFR values (< 1.0 or > 2.5), with correct classification in only 15% of patients in a typical lab with MFR of 1.8 ± 0.5. CONCLUSIONS: Current SPECT-derived estimates of MFR lack precision and require further optimization for clinical risk stratification.
Authors: S I Sazonova; J V Varlamova; N A Nikitin; S M Minin; I V Kisteneva; R E Batalov; A I Mishkina; Y N Ilushenkova; K V Zavadovsky; S V Popov; A B Romanov Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 3.872
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: 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