OBJECTIVES: In a previous study in 460 patients, we found that in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease undergoing stress-rest technetium-99m sestamibi (MIBI) SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging, rest SPECT imaging could be withhold in approximately 20% of patients because of a completely normal stress study. The present study was set up to evaluate the consequences of the implementation of this finding in a subsequent population of patients, and to set standards for the variety of protocols now used for MIBI SPECT imaging. METHODS: Within a period of 4 months, 235 consecutive patients referred for MIBI SPECT scintigraphy were studied. All patients had stable cardiac chest pain and underwent symptom-limited exercise MIBI SPECT perfusion imaging. The stress SPECT images were reconstructed and evaluated immediately after acquisition of the images. In case of a clearly normal stress SPECT study, rest imaging was cancelled. RESULTS: Twenty-six of 235 patients (11%) had a completely normal stress MIBI SPECT study and the rest SPECT imaging procedure could be subsequently cancelled. In 20 patients (9%) the stress SPECT was inconclusive, and in 189 (80%) of patients stress imaging was clearly abnormal. In the first month of the study, the nuclear medicine physicians and cardiologists would interprete only 6% of the stress images as normal, while this number increased to 13% after 9 weeks, with a mean of 11% for the whole investigation period of 4 months. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing stress MIBI SPECT imaging, it was found justified to cancel rest MIBI SPECT imaging in at least 11% of patients because of a completely normal stress SPECT. As 9% of the images were inconclusive, the number of normal stress images could theoretically increase to 20% if reliable measures are taken to improve reading accuracy. This number is in close agreement with the number of normal stress studies previously reported by our institution and would lead to a considerable reduction of radiation dose, costs, and increased convenience for an important subset of patients.
OBJECTIVES: In a previous study in 460 patients, we found that in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease undergoing stress-rest technetium-99m sestamibi (MIBI) SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging, rest SPECT imaging could be withhold in approximately 20% of patients because of a completely normal stress study. The present study was set up to evaluate the consequences of the implementation of this finding in a subsequent population of patients, and to set standards for the variety of protocols now used for MIBI SPECT imaging. METHODS: Within a period of 4 months, 235 consecutive patients referred for MIBI SPECT scintigraphy were studied. All patients had stable cardiac chest pain and underwent symptom-limited exercise MIBI SPECT perfusion imaging. The stress SPECT images were reconstructed and evaluated immediately after acquisition of the images. In case of a clearly normal stress SPECT study, rest imaging was cancelled. RESULTS: Twenty-six of 235 patients (11%) had a completely normal stress MIBI SPECT study and the rest SPECT imaging procedure could be subsequently cancelled. In 20 patients (9%) the stress SPECT was inconclusive, and in 189 (80%) of patients stress imaging was clearly abnormal. In the first month of the study, the nuclear medicine physicians and cardiologists would interprete only 6% of the stress images as normal, while this number increased to 13% after 9 weeks, with a mean of 11% for the whole investigation period of 4 months. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing stress MIBI SPECT imaging, it was found justified to cancel rest MIBI SPECT imaging in at least 11% of patients because of a completely normal stress SPECT. As 9% of the images were inconclusive, the number of normal stress images could theoretically increase to 20% if reliable measures are taken to improve reading accuracy. This number is in close agreement with the number of normal stress studies previously reported by our institution and would lead to a considerable reduction of radiation dose, costs, and increased convenience for an important subset of patients.
Authors: J L Ritchie; G B Trobaugh; G W Hamilton; K L Gould; K A Narahara; J A Murray; D L Williams Journal: Circulation Date: 1977-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J A Melin; L J Piret; R J Vanbutsele; M F Rousseau; J Cosyns; L A Brasseur; C Beckers; J M Detry Journal: Circulation Date: 1981-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: C D Santos-Ocampo; S D Herman; M I Travin; C E Garber; A W Ahlberg; D E Messinger; G V Heller Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 1994 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: W Lane Duvall; Melanie N Wijetunga; Thomas M Klein; Louai Razzouk; Jim Godbold; Lori B Croft; Milena J Henzlova Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 5.952