Santana C A, Garcia E V, Vansant J P, Krawczynska E G, Folks R D, Cooke C D, Faber T L
Radiology Department, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA.
Nucl Med Commun. 2003 Mar;24(3):241-9. doi: 10.1097/00006231-200303000-00003.
In today's cost containment environment it is important to consider changes to standard protocols which would reduce cost, particularly if there is no significant loss of diagnostic accuracy. The aim of the present study was to assess the usefulness of a gated stress-only Tc sestamibi protocol in comparison to conventional gated dual isotope rest-stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in the detection and localization of coronary artery disease (CAD). Sixty-five consecutive patients (65+/-10 years, 22 women) who had undergone conventional gated perfusion SPECT were chosen retrospectively. Fifty-three of these 65 patients had previous coronary arteriography, 45 with at least one stenosis, eight without stenosis, and 12 of these 65 patients had <5% likelihood of CAD. Three readers interpreted the gated stress-only and dual isotope studies in separate sessions blinded to (1). their previous readings, (2). the interpretation by others, and (3). the angiographic results. Readers used a five-point scale to score their visual and quantitative assessment of perfusion, function and compromised vascular territory. Their average score was used for determination of the accuracy by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of the techniques. The areas under ROC curves were determined for the detection of CAD and localization of vascular territories. Fifty-four of these patients had 97 significant stress induced perfusion defects as determined by the CEqual quantitative program. The agreement between protocols for the assessment of reversibility in these 97 defects was analysed. There were no statistically significant differences between dual isotope rest/stress and gated stress-only studies for the detection and localization of CAD. The area under the dual isotope rest/stress ROC curve was 0.78+/-0.07 compared to the area under the gated stress-only ROC curve of 0.80+/-0.06, resulting in P=0.30. For the combined vessels comparison of the area under the dual isotope rest/stress ROC curve was 0.73+/-0.04 versus the area under the gated stress-only ROC curve of 0.74+/-0.04, resulting in P=0.27. Similar non-significant differences were obtained when comparing the area under the dual isotope versus gated stress-only ROC curves for the left anterior descending vascular territory (LAD, 0.61+/-0.08 vs 0.660.08, P=0.14), the left circumflex vascular territory (LCX, 0.82+/-0.07 vs 0.81+/-0.06, P =0.47) or the right coronary vascular territory (RCA, 0.80+/-0.06 vs 0.78+/-0.06, P=0.28). The analysis of the reversibility of stress induced perfusion defects yielded a global agreement between protocols of 93% (kappa=0.42). The differences were due to the expert readers, using the gated stress-only protocol, misinterpreting some patients with attenuation artefacts, subendocardial infarction and functional stunning. These results show that the lower cost gated stress-only myocardial Tc myocardial perfusion SPECT studies are comparable to the conventional dual isotope studies when the clinical question is the detection and localization of coronary artery disease. Nevertheless, we also showed that this approach is limited when attempting to interpret the reversibility of stress induced perfusion defects in patients who exhibit attenuation artefacts, subendocardial infarction and functional stunning.
在当今控制成本的环境下,考虑对标准方案进行能降低成本的改变非常重要,特别是在诊断准确性不会显著降低的情况下。本研究的目的是评估仅进行门控静息心肌灌注锝 - 甲氧基异丁基异腈(Tc sestamibi)方案与传统门控双同位素静息 - 负荷心肌灌注单光子发射计算机断层扫描(SPECT)相比,在检测和定位冠状动脉疾病(CAD)方面的实用性。回顾性选取了65例连续接受传统门控灌注SPECT检查的患者(年龄65±10岁,女性22例)。这65例患者中,53例曾接受过冠状动脉造影,其中45例有至少一处狭窄,8例无狭窄,并且这65例患者中有12例CAD可能性小于5%。三位阅片者在独立的阅片过程中对仅门控负荷和双同位素检查结果进行解读,且对以下情况不知情:(1)他们之前的阅片结果;(2)其他人的解读结果;(3)血管造影结果。阅片者使用五点量表对灌注、功能和受损血管区域进行视觉和定量评估评分。通过使用这些技术的受试者操作特征(ROC)分析,以他们的平均评分来确定准确性。确定了用于检测CAD和定位血管区域的ROC曲线下面积。通过CEqual定量程序确定,这些患者中有54例存在97个显著负荷诱发的灌注缺损。分析了这97个缺损在两种方案下评估可逆性的一致性。在检测和定位CAD方面,双同位素静息/负荷检查与仅门控负荷检查之间无统计学显著差异。双同位素静息/负荷ROC曲线下面积为0.78±0.07,而仅门控负荷ROC曲线下面积为0.