Fast myocardial perfusion imaging with 99mTc in challenging patients using conventional SPECT cameras
- 219 Downloads
We attempted to validate the performance of a fast myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) protocol in diagnostically challenging patients.
78 patients with ΒΜΙ > 24.9, LVH or three vessels disease underwent two sequential gated-MPI studies. The first at 15 (Early Imaging, EI) and the second at 45 (Late Imaging, LI) minutes post 99mTc-injection, at both stress and rest. Counts over heart (H), liver (Liv) and subdiaphragmatic space (Sub) and image quality, and myocardial perfusion and function parameters were compared between the two protocols. Coronary angiography was performed within 2 months from MPI, and ROC analysis was used to compare the diagnostic accuracy for the detection of ≥50% diameter luminal stenosis.
Quality was optimal-good in 93% of EI and 98% of LI studies (P = .12), H/Liv and stress H/Sub ratios were similar, but rest H/Sub ratio was lower in EI (P = .009). SSS [10 (0 to 46) vs 9 (0 to 36), P = .006] and SDS [3 (0 to 35) vs 2 (0 to 34), P = .02] were higher in EI protocol. LVEF, motion and thickening scores did not differ between the two protocols. A highly significant (P < .001) linear relationship with clinically negligible mean differences in Bland-Altman analysis was observed for all perfusion and function-related data. Sensitivity (EI 81%, LI 80%) and specificity (65% for both) did not differ (P = .23) between the two protocols.
The fast protocol is technically feasible and diagnostically accurate compared to the established protocol in diagnostically challenging patients.
KeywordsMyocardial perfusion imaging fast protocol tetrofosmin diagnostically challenging patients
Coronary artery disease
Summed stress score
Summed difference score
Summed rest score
LV end-diastolic volume
LV end-systolic volume
Total ischemic mass defect
Intraclass correlation coefficient
Quantitative coronary angiography
No relationships with industry or forms of financial support to be disclosed.
- 1.WHO. The top ten causes of death. Fact sheet no 310; 2013.Google Scholar
- 2.Malvern PAMR. The Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Market Guide (U.S.) Supplement to the U.S. Imaging Market Guide. Inc 2007.Google Scholar
- 6.Hesse B, Tagil K, Cuocolo A, Anagnostopoulos C, Bardies M, Bax J, Bengel F, Busemann Sokole E, Davies G, Dondi M, Edenbrandt L, Franken P, Kjaer A, Knuuti J, Lassmann M, Ljungberg M, Marcassa C, Marie PY, McKiddie F, O’Connor M, Prvulovich E, Underwood R, van Eck-Smit B. EANM/ESC procedural guidelines for myocardial perfusion imaging in nuclear cardiology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:855-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, Afilalo J, Armstrong A, Ernande L, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;16:233-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Nuyts J, Dupont P, Van den Maegdenbergh V, Vleugels S, Suetens P, Mortelmans L. A study of the liver-heart artifact in emission tomography. J Nucl Med 1995;36:133-9.Google Scholar
- 24.Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, Mancini GB, Hayes SW, Hartigan PM, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation 2008;117:1283-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, Jacobs AK, Kaul S, Laskey WK, et al. Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. J Nucl Cardiol 2002;9:240-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar