Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of PET and SPECT for Coronary Artery Disease

  • Cardiac Nuclear Imaging (A Cuocolo, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Noninvasive assessment with a technique such as single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) or positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is common and appropriate before coronary angiography to define coronary anatomy. The diagnostic accuracy of these techniques has been extensively studied with over well over 100 publications reporting the sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and diagnostic odds ratio for identifying coronary artery disease with both of them throughout their evolution. Meta-analytic techniques have emerged to combine diagnostic accuracy studies while retaining the 2-dimensional value of sensitivity and specificity data. Recent diagnostic accuracy meta-analyses estimated sensitivity and specificity for SPECT for coronary artery disease at 85 %–88 % and 76 %–85 %, respectively, and the corresponding values for PET at 90 %–92 % and 81 %–88 %. These meta-analytic estimates will be reviewed along with areas of ongoing work with myocardial blood flow measurement and hybrid SPECT/CT and PET/CT imaging systems that will continue improve the diagnostic performance of nuclear techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice guidelines and the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:e44–122.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Statistics notes. Diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity and specificity. BMJ. 1994;308:1552.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Altman DG, Bland JM. Statistics notes. Diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic plots. BMJ. 1994;309:188.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mallett S, Halligan S, Thompson M, Collins GS, Altman DG. Interpreting diagnostic accuracy studies for patient care. BMJ. 2012;345:e3999.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. White CW, Wright CB, Doty DB, et al. Does visual interpretation of the coronary arteriogram predict the physiologic importance of a coronary stenosis? N Engl J Med. 1984;310:819–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fleming RM, Kirkeeide RL, Smalling RW, Gould KL. Patterns in visual interpretation of coronary arteriograms as detected by quantitative coronary arteriography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;18:945–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vas R, Eigler N, Miyazono C, et al. Digital quantification eliminates intra-observer and inter-observer variability in the evaluation of coronary artery stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 1985;56:718–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wolk MJ, Bailey SR, Doherty JU, et al. ACCF/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2013 multimodality appropriate use criteria for the detection and risk assessment of stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:380–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gould KL, Johnson NP, Bateman TM, et al. Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease. Role of coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and positron emission tomography imaging in revascularization decision-making. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1639–53. Comprehensive review of physiologic, vs anatomic, assessment of coronary artery disease.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. De Bruyne B, Baudhuin T, Melin JA, et al. Coronary flow reserve calculated from pressure measurements in humans. Validation with positron emission tomography. Circulation. 1994;89:1013–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pijls NHJ, De Bruyne B, Peels K, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1703–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pijls NH, van Son JA, Kirkeeide RL, De Bruyne B, Gould KL. Experimental basis of determining maximum coronary, myocardial, and collateral blood flow by pressure measurements for assessing functional stenosis severity before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1993;87:1354–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tonino PAL, De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, et al. Fractional flow reserve vs angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Camici PG, Crea F. Coronary microvascular dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:830–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Begg CB, Greenes RA. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics. 1983;39:207–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. de Groot JAH, Dendukuri N, Janssen KJM, et al. Adjusting for partial verification or workup bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175:847–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Trikalinos TA, Balion CM, et al. Chapter 8: meta-analysis of test performance when there is a “gold standard”. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27 Suppl 1:S56–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, et al. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:982–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH, et al. ACC/AHA/ASNC guidelines for the clinical use of cardiac radionuclide imaging–executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASNC Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:1318–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Health Quality Ontario. Single photon emission computed tomography for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010;10:1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schünemann HJ, Schünemann AHJ, Oxman AD, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336:1106–10.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ladapo JA, Blecker S, Elashoff MR, et al. Clinical implications of referral bias in the diagnostic performance of exercise testing for coronary artery disease. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2:e000505.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhou T, Yang L-F, Zhai J-L, et al. SPECT myocardial perfusion versus fractional flow reserve for evaluation of functional ischemia: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:951–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Beanlands RSB, Youssef G. Diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease: PET is superior to SPECT: Pro. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:683–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nandalur KR, Dwamena BA, Choudhri AF, et al. Diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography in the detection of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:444–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, 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. Circulation. 2002;105:539–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Berman DS, Kang X, Slomka PJ, et al. Underestimation of extent of ischemia by gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with left main coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:521–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ziadi MC, deKemp RA, Williams K, et al. Does quantification of myocardial flow reserve using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography facilitate detection of multi-vessel coronary artery disease? J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:670–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fiechter M, Ghadri JR, Gebhard C, et al. Diagnostic value of 13N-ammonia myocardial perfusion PET: added value of myocardial flow reserve. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1230–4. Myocardial flow reserve calculation in addition to PET MPI dramatically improved sensitivity for detecting significant CAD in 73 patients from 79% to 96% without loss of specificity of the test.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Fleischmann KE, Hunink MGM. Stress echocardiography, stress single-photon-emission computed tomography and electron beam computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of diagnostic performance. Am Heart J. 2007;154:415.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Parker MW, Iskandar A, Limone B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of cardiac positron emission tomography vs single photon emission computed tomography for coronary artery disease: a bivariate meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:700–7. Large and rigorous meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT and PET; analyzed SPECT MPI in 11,212 patients and PET MPI in 650 patients to estimate sensitivity and specificity of SPECT at 88% and 76%, respectively, compared with 92% and 81% for PET.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. McArdle BA, Dowsley TF, deKemp RA, Wells GA, Beanlands RS. Does rubidium-82 PET have superior accuracy to SPECT perfusion imaging for the diagnosis of obstructive coronary disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1828–37. Thorough modern meta-analysis of Tc-99m SPECT with attenuation correction and ECG-gating in 1755 patients compared with Rb-82 PET in 1344 patients that estimated sensitivity and specificity of 85% and 85% for SPECT and 90% and 88% for PET.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jaarsma C, Leiner T, Bekkers SC, et al. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive myocardial perfusion imaging using single-photon emission computed tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance, and positron emission tomography imaging for the detection of obstructive coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1719–28. Comprehensive meta-analysis of cardiac magnetic resonance as well as SPECT and PET MPI for coronary artery disease. With #33 & #34, these meta-analyses are likely the last to be performed upon SPECT and PET with anatomic (percent) stenosis as the reference standard.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Candell-Riera J, Oller-Martínez G, Pereztol-Valdés O, et al. Usefulness of myocardial perfusion SPECT in patients with left bundle branch block and previous myocardial infarction. Heart. 2003;89:1039–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Iskandrian AE, Verani MS, editors. Nuclear cardiac imaging: principles and applications. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 164–89.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Burns RJ, Galligan L, Wright LM, Lawand S, Burke RJ, Gladstone PJ. Improved specificity of myocardial thallium-201 single-photon emission computed tomography in patients with left bundle branch block by dipyridamole. Am J Cardiol. 1991;68:504–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rockett JF, Wood WC, Moinuddin M, et al. Intravenous dipyridamole thallium-201 SPECT imaging in patients with left bundle branch block. Clin Nucl Med. 1990;15:401–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. O’Keefe JH, Bateman TM, Silvestri R, Barnhart C. Safety and diagnostic accuracy of adenosine thallium-201 scintigraphy in patients unable to exercise and those with left bundle branch block. Am Heart J. 1992;124:614–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Koepfli P, Wyss CA, Gaemperli O, et al. Left bundle branch block causes relative but not absolute septal underperfusion during exercise. Eur Heart J. 2009;30:2993–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Shaw LJ, Bairey Merz CN, Pepine CJ, et al. Insights from the NHLBI-Sponsored Women’s Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) Study: Part I: gender differences in traditional and novel risk factors, symptom evaluation, and gender-optimized diagnostic strategies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:S4–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Iskandar A, Limone B, Parker MW, et al. Gender differences in the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: a bivariate meta-analysis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:53–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Knaapen P. Diagnosing coronary artery disease with hybrid PET/CT: it takes two to tango. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:874–90. Review of the nascent diagnostic accuracy literature for hybrid PET with computed tomography coronary angiography.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rispler S, Keidar Z, Ghersin E, et al. Integrated single-photon emission computed tomography and computed tomography coronary angiography for the assessment of hemodynamically significant coronary artery lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:1059–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sato A, Nozato T, Hikita H, et al. Incremental value of combining 64-slice computed tomography angiography with stress nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging to improve noninvasive detection of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:19–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Schaap J, Kauling RM, Boekholdt SM, et al. Incremental diagnostic accuracy of hybrid SPECT/CT coronary angiography in a population with an intermediate to high pre-test likelihood of coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;14:642–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Groves AM, Speechly-Dick M-E, Kayani I, et al. First experience of combined cardiac PET/64-detector CT angiography with invasive angiographic validation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:2027–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kajander S, Joutsiniemi E, Saraste M, et al. Cardiac positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging accurately detects anatomically and functionally significant coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2010;122:603–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Appelman YE, et al. Hybrid imaging using quantitative H215O PET and CT-based coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:55–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Bateman TM, Heller GV, McGhie AI, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of rest/stress ECG-gated Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET: comparison with ECG-gated Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13:24–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Yoshinaga K, Chow BJW, Williams K, et al. What is the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1029–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bateman TM. Advantages and disadvantages of PET and SPECT in a busy clinical practice. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19 Suppl 1:S3–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Diamond GA. The wizard of odds: Bayes theorem and diagnostic testing. Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;74:1179–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Matthew Parker has received grants and personal fees from Intersocietal Accreditation Commission and grants from Lantheus Medical Imaging.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA

    Matthew W. Parker M.D.

  2. Division of Cardiology, Hartford Hospital, 80 Seymour Street, Hartford, CT, 06102, USA

    Matthew W. Parker M.D.

Authors
  1. Matthew W. Parker M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew W. Parker M.D..

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Cardiac Nuclear Imaging

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parker, M.W. Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of PET and SPECT for Coronary Artery Disease. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep 8, 9302 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12410-014-9302-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12410-014-9302-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation