Advertisement

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 1292–1301 | Cite as

Impact of imaging protocol on left ventricular ejection fraction using gated-SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging

  • C. MarcassaEmail author
  • R. Giubbini
  • W. Acampa
  • C. Cittanti
  • O. Djepaxhija
  • A. Gimelli
  • A. Kokomani
  • G. Medolago
  • E. Milan
  • R. Sciagrà
Original Article

Abstract

Background

There are limited data on the impact of the imaging protocol (single-day stress-rest, SD, vs. dual-day, DD) on the change in left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) (post-stress-rest) in relation to ischemia and on outcome.

Methods

Using propensity score matching procedure, 490 of 1121 patients with known CAD, undergoing a SD or a DD in a multicenter study, were evaluated. Stress and rest gated-SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging was used to quantify LV perfusion, EF, and volumes. Outcome was assessed at an average follow-up time of 3.2 years.

Results

Post-stress LVEF in SD and DD were comparable across all degrees of ischemia. The change in LVEF in patients with severe ischemia was, however, higher in the DD protocol, independent of the extent of CAD. At follow-up, 240 patients (49.0%) required coronary revascularization (CR) and 52 patients (10.6%) had hard events. The ischemic burden was independently associated with CR and hard-events; the post-stress LVEF was associated with CR but the change in EF was not predictive of either CR or hard events.

Conclusions

In patients with severe ischemia, underestimation of post-stress myocardial stunning could be observed with the SD protocol. Post-stress LVEF and the extent ischemia, but not the change in EF, are predictive of CR and hard events.

Key Words

Gated-SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging prognosis study protocol 

Abbreviations

CAD

Coronary artery disease

CR

Coronary revascularization

DD

Dual-day

EF

Ejection fraction

EDV

End-diastolic volume

ESV

End-systolic volume

LV

Left ventricular

MPI

Myocardial perfusion imaging

SD

Single-day

SDS

Summed difference score

SRS

Summed rest score

SSS

Summed stress score

Notes

Authors Contribution

CMarcassa contributed in conception, design and analysis and interpretation of data; drafting of the manuscript; final approval of the manuscript. R. Giubbini contributed in conception, design and analysis and interpretation of data; revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the manuscript. W. Acampa contributed in conception, design and interpretation of data; drafting of the manuscript; final approval of the manuscript. C. Cittanti contributed by active involvement in collecting data; revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. A. Gimelli contributed in conception, design and interpretation of data; drafting of the manuscript; final approval of the manuscript. G. Medolago contributed by active involvement in collection and analysis/interpretation of data. E. Milan contributed in revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, final approval of the manuscript. R. Sciagrà contributed in revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the manuscript. O. Djepaxhija contributed by active involvement in collection and analysis of data. A. Kokomani contributed by active involvement in collection and analysis of data.

Disclosure

The authors have indicated that they have no financial conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Shaw LJ, Hendel R, Borges-Neto S, Lauer MS, Alazraki N, Burnette J, et al. Prognostic value of normal exercise and adenosine 99m Tc-tetrofosmin SPECT imaging: Results from the multicenter registry of 4,728 patients. J Nucl Med 2003;44:134–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Underwood SR, Anagnostopoulos C, Cerqueira M, Ell PJ, Flint EJ, Harbinson M, et al. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: The evidence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:261–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cremer P, Hachamovicth R, Tamarappoo B. Clinical decision making with myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Semin Nucl Med 2014;44:320–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hachamovitch R, Hayes S, Friedman J, Cohen I, Shaw L, Germano G, et al. Determinants of risk and its temporal variation in patients with normal stress myocardial perfusion scans. What is the warranty period of a normal scan? J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:1329–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Berman BS. Stress myocardial perfusion single-photon emission tomography is clinically effective and cost effective in risk stratification of patients with a high likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD) but no known CAD. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:200–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Verberne HJ, Acampa W, Anagnostopoulos C, Ballinger J, Bengel F, De Bondt P, et al. EANM procedural guidelines for radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging with SPECT and SPECT/CT: 2015 revision. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015;42(12):1929–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hashimoto J, Kubo A, Iwasaki R, Iwanaga S, Mitamura H, Ogawa S, et al. Gated single-photon emission tomography imaging protocol to evaluate myocardial stunning after exercise. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26:1541–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ohtaki Y, Chikamori T, Igarashi Y, Hida S, Tanaka H, Hatano T, et al. Differential effects comparing exercise and pharmacologic stress on left ventricular function using gated Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT. Ann Nucl Med 2008;22:185–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Demir H, Tan YZ, Isgoren S, Gorur GD, Kozdag G, Ural E, et al. Comparison of exercise and pharmacological stress gated SPECT in detecting transient left ventricular dysfunction. Ann Nucl Med 2008;22:403–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Germano G, Kavanagh KB, Waechter P, Areeda J, Van Kriekinge S, Sharir T, et al. A new algorithm for the quantitation of myocardial Perfusion SPECT. I: Technical principles and reproducibility. J NucI Med 2000;41:712–9.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Germano G, Kiat H, Kavanagh PB, Moriel M, Mazzanti M, Su HT, et al. Automatic quantification of ejection fraction from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med 1995;36:2138–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xu Y, Arsanjani R, Clond M, Hyun M, Lemley M, Fish M, et al. Transient ischemic dilation for coronary artery disease in quantitative analysis of same-day sestamibi myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 2012;19:465–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983;70:41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ho Daniel E, Imai Kosuke, King Gary, Stuart Elizabeth A. MatchIt: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. J Stat Softw 2011;42(8):1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/.
  16. 16.
    Sharir T, Germano G, Kavanagh PB, Lai S, Cohen I, Lewin HC, et al. Incremental prognostic value of post-stress left ventricular ejection fraction and volume by gated myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography. Circulation 1999;100:1035–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dona M, Massi L, Settimo L, Bartolini M, Giannì G, Pupi A, et al. Prognostic implications of post-stress ejection fraction decrease detected by gated SPECT in the absence of stress-induced perfusion abnormalities. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2001;38:485–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carvalho PA, Aguiar PM, Grossman GB, et al. Prognostic implications of the difference between left ventricular ejection fraction after stress and at rest in addition to the quantification of myocardial perfusion abnormalities obtained with gated-SPECT. Clin Nucl Med 2012;37:748–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Usui Y, Chikamori T, Nakajima K, Moraes JF, Baptista IS, Hirakata VN, et al. Prognostic value of post-ischemic stunning as assessed by gated myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography. A subanalysis of the J-ACCESS study. Circ J 2010;74:1591–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giorgetti A, Rossi M, Stanislao M, Valle G, Bertolaccini P, Maneschi A, et al. Myoview Imaging Optimization Group. Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of a gated SPECT early-imaging protocol: a multicenter study of the Myoview Imaging Optimization Group. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1670–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sciagrà R, Sotgia B, Dona M, Pupi A. influence of the post-exercise acquisition delay on the detection of functional abnormalities in Sestamibi gated-SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14:334–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giorgetti A, Kusch A, Casagranda M, Tagliavia ID, Marzullo P. Myocardial imaging with 99mTc-Tetrofosmin: Influence of post-stress acquisition time, regional radiotracer uptake, and wall motion abnormalities on the clinical result. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:276–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mut F, Giubbini R, Vitola J, Lusa L, Sobic-Saranovic D, Peix A, et al. Detection of post-exercise stunning by early gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: results from the IAEA multi-center study. J Nucl Cardiol 2014;21:1168–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nishimura T, Nakajima K, Kusuoka H, Yamashina A, Nishimura S. Prognostic study of risk stratification among Japanese patients with ischemic heart disease using gated myocardial perfusion SPECT: J-ACCESS study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:319–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Marcassa
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. Giubbini
    • 2
  • W. Acampa
    • 3
  • C. Cittanti
    • 4
  • O. Djepaxhija
    • 8
  • A. Gimelli
    • 5
  • A. Kokomani
    • 8
  • G. Medolago
    • 6
  • E. Milan
    • 7
  • R. Sciagrà
    • 8
  1. 1.Cardiology Department, S. Maugeri Fnd, IRCCSScientific Institute of VerunoVerunoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Medical ImagingUniversity and Spedali CiviliBresciaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Advanced Biomedical SciencesUniversity “Federico II”NaplesItaly
  4. 4.Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Morphology, Surgery and Experimental MedicineUniversity of FerraraFerraraItaly
  5. 5.Fondazione Toscana G. MonasterioPisaItaly
  6. 6.Nuclear Medicine DeptBergamoItaly
  7. 7.Nuclear Medicine UnitSan Giacomo Apostolo HospitalCastelfranco VenetoItaly
  8. 8.Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical SciencesUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations