Literature DB >> 35727872

Differences in Prognostic Value of Myocardial Perfusion Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography Using High-Efficiency Solid-State Detector Between Men and Women in a Large International Multicenter Study.

Balaji K Tamarappoo1, Yuka Otaki1, Tali Sharir2,3, Lien-Hsin Hu1,4, Heidi Gransar1, Andrew J Einstein5, Mathews B Fish6, Terrence D Ruddy7, Philipp Kaufmann8, Albert J Sinusas9, Edward J Miller9, Timothy M Bateman10, Sharmila Dorbala11, Marcelo Di Carli11, Evann Eisenberg1, Joanna X Liang1, Damini Dey1, Daniel S Berman1, Piotr J Slomka1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Semiquantitative assessment of stress myocardial perfusion defect has been shown to have greater prognostic value for prediction of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in women compared with men in single-center studies with conventional single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) cameras. We evaluated sex-specific difference in the prognostic value of automated quantification of ischemic total perfusion defect (ITPD) and the interaction between sex and ITPD using high-efficiency SPECT cameras with solid-state detectors in an international multicenter imaging registry (REFINE SPECT [Registry of Fast Myocardial Perfusion Imaging With Next-Generation SPECT]).
METHODS: Rest and exercise or pharmacological stress SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging were performed in 17 833 patients from 5 centers. MACE was defined as the first occurrence of death or myocardial infarction. Total perfusion defect (TPD) at rest, stress, and ejection fraction were quantified automatically by software. ITPD was given by stressTPD-restTPD. Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the association between ITPD versus MACE-free survival and expressed as a hazard ratio.
RESULTS: In 10614 men and 7219 women, with a median follow-up of 4.75 years (interquartile range, 3.7-6.1), there were 1709 MACE. In a multivariable Cox model, after adjusting for revascularization and other confounding variables, ITPD was associated with MACE (hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.05-1.1]; P<0.001). There was an interaction between ITPD and sex (P<0.001); predicted survival for ITPD<5% was worse among men compared to women, whereas survival among women was worse than men for ITPD≥5%, P<0.001.
CONCLUSIONS: In the international, multicenter REFINE SPECT registry, moderate and severe ischemia as quantified by ITPD from high-efficiency SPECT is associated with a worse prognosis in women compared with men.

Entities:  

Keywords:  coronary artery disease; myocardial infarction; myocardial perfusion imaging; prognosis; tomography

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35727872      PMCID: PMC9307118          DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.121.012741

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1941-9651            Impact factor:   8.589


  32 in total

1.  The increasing role of quantification in clinical nuclear cardiology: the Emory approach.

Authors:  Ernest V Garcia; Tracy L Faber; C David Cooke; Russell D Folks; Ji Chen; Cesar Santana
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 2.  The prognostic value of normal exercise myocardial perfusion imaging and exercise echocardiography: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Louise D Metz; Mary Beattie; Robert Hom; Rita F Redberg; Deborah Grady; Kirsten E Fleischmann
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2006-12-29       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  A novel high-sensitivity rapid-acquisition single-photon cardiac imaging camera.

Authors:  Sanjiv S Gambhir; Daniel S Berman; Jack Ziffer; Michael Nagler; Martin Sandler; Jim Patton; Brian Hutton; Tali Sharir; Shlomo Ben Haim; Simona Ben Haim
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 4.  Risk assessment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: incremental value of nuclear imaging.

Authors:  D S Berman; R Hachamovitch
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  1996 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 5.  Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Guidelines: Instrumentation, Acquisition, Processing, and Interpretation.

Authors:  Sharmila Dorbala; Karthik Ananthasubramaniam; Ian S Armstrong; Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; E Gordon DePuey; Andrew J Einstein; Robert J Gropler; Thomas A Holly; John J Mahmarian; Mi-Ae Park; Donna M Polk; Raymond Russell; Piotr J Slomka; Randall C Thompson; R Glenn Wells
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 5.952

6.  Prognostic value of quantitative stress myocardial perfusion imaging in unstable angina patients with negative cardiac enzymes and no new ischemic ECG changes.

Authors:  Habib A Dakik; Wayne S Hwang; Aman Jafar; Kay Kimball; Mario S Verani; John J Mahmarian
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.952

7.  Effective risk stratification using exercise myocardial perfusion SPECT in women: gender-related differences in prognostic nuclear testing.

Authors:  R Hachamovitch; D S Berman; H Kiat; C N Bairey; I Cohen; A Cabico; J Friedman; G Germano; K F Van Train; G A Diamond
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 24.094

8.  Prognostic value of quantitative high-speed myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Ryo Nakazato; Daniel S Berman; Heidi Gransar; Mark Hyun; Romalisa Miranda-Peats; Faith C Kite; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; John D Friedman; Alan Rozanski; Piotr J Slomka
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-10-12       Impact factor: 5.952

9.  High-efficiency SPECT MPI: comparison of automated quantification, visual interpretation, and coronary angiography.

Authors:  W Lane Duvall; Piotr J Slomka; Jim R Gerlach; Joseph M Sweeny; Usman Baber; Lori B Croft; Krista A Guma; Titus George; Milena J Henzlova
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 5.952

10.  Normal stress-only versus standard stress/rest myocardial perfusion imaging: similar patient mortality with reduced radiation exposure.

Authors:  Su Min Chang; Faisal Nabi; Jiaqiong Xu; Umara Raza; John J Mahmarian
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2009-11-13       Impact factor: 24.094

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.