Departments of Imaging and Medicine and Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
J Nucl Med. 2013 Feb;54(2):221-8. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.112.108969. Epub 2013 Jan 11.
We compared the performance of fully automated quantification of attenuation-corrected (AC) and noncorrected (NC) myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) with the corresponding performance of experienced readers for detection of coronary artery disease (CAD).
Rest-stress (99m)Tc-sestamibi MPS studies (n = 995; 650 consecutive cases with coronary angiography and 345 with likelihood of CAD < 5%) were obtained by MPS with AC. The total perfusion deficit (TPD) for AC and NC data was compared with the visual summed stress and rest scores of 2 experienced readers. Visual reads were performed in 4 consecutive steps with the following information progressively revealed: NC data, AC + NC data, computer results, and all clinical information.
The diagnostic accuracy of TPD for detection of CAD was similar to both readers (NC: 82% vs. 84%; AC: 86% vs. 85%-87%; P = not significant) with the exception of the second reader when clinical information was used (89%, P < 0.05). The receiver-operating-characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) for TPD was significantly better than visual reads for NC (0.91 vs. 0.87 and 0.89, P < 0.01) and AC (0.92 vs. 0.90, P < 0.01), and it was comparable to visual reads incorporating all clinical information. The per-vessel accuracy of TPD was superior to one reader for NC (81% vs. 77%, P < 0.05) and AC (83% vs. 78%, P < 0.05) and equivalent to the second reader (NC, 79%; and AC, 81%). The per-vessel ROC AUC for NC (0.83) and AC (0.84) for TPD was better than that for the first reader (0.78-0.80, P < 0.01) and comparable to that of the second reader (0.82-0.84, P = not significant) for all steps.
For detection of ≥70% stenoses based on angiographic criteria, a fully automated computer analysis of NC and AC MPS data is equivalent for per-patient and can be superior for per-vessel analysis, when compared with expert analysis.
比较全自动定量分析衰减校正(AC)和非校正(NC)心肌灌注 SPECT(MPS)与有经验的读者在检测冠状动脉疾病(CAD)方面的性能。
对 995 例静息-应激(99m)Tc-替替比碇 MPS 研究(650 例连续冠状动脉造影和 345 例 CAD 可能性<5%)进行 MPS 检查,采用 AC 获得总灌注缺损(TPD)。比较 AC 和 NC 数据的视觉总和应激和休息评分与 2 名有经验的读者。在 4 个连续步骤中进行视觉读取,逐步揭示以下信息:NC 数据、AC+NC 数据、计算机结果和所有临床信息。
TPD 对 CAD 的诊断准确性与两位读者相似(NC:82%与 84%;AC:86%与 85%-87%;P=无显著差异),但当使用临床信息时,第二位读者除外(89%,P<0.05)。AC 时,TPD 的接收者操作特征曲线下面积(ROC AUC)明显优于 NC 时的视觉读数(0.91 与 0.87 和 0.89,P<0.01),与纳入所有临床信息的视觉读数相当。与 NC(81%与 77%,P<0.05)和 AC(83%与 78%,P<0.05)的一位读者相比,TPD 的单支血管准确性更高,与第二位读者相当(NC,79%;AC,81%)。NC(0.83)和 AC(0.84)时 TPD 的单支血管 ROC AUC 优于第一位读者(0.78-0.80,P<0.01),与第二位读者相当(0.82-0.84,P=无显著差异)。
基于血管造影标准,检测≥70%狭窄时,与专家分析相比,NC 和 AC MPS 数据的全自动计算机分析在患者个体水平上是等效的,在血管水平上可以更优。