Journals / Molecular Imaging and Radionuclide Therapy / 2021 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 3

The Comparison of Quantitative Evaluation Results of the MPS SPECT/CT and Coronary Angiography: Determining the Most Valuable Quantitative Evaluation Score

MPS SPECT/BT Kantitatif Değerlendirme Sonuçlarının Koroner Anjiyografi Sonuçları ileKarşılaştırılması: En Değerli Kantitatif Değerlendirme Skorunun Belirlenmesi

Pages
169–176
Publication Date
2022-09-03
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Patients with no prior CAD history with TPDS score higher than 5 in MPS should be referred for CA with priority

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: This study aimed to determine the most important perfusion score in patient selection for coronary angiography (CA) by quantitatively evaluating myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Patients who underwent MPS single-photon emission computerized tomography/computed tomograph imaging in our clinic between December 2017 and January 2019, without coronary artery disease (CAD) history, followed by CA were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Patients with no prior CAD history with TPDS score higher than 5 in MPS should be referred for CA with priority
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to determine the most important perfusion score in patient selection for coronary angiography (CA) by quantitatively evaluating myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS). Methods: Patients who underwent MPS single-photon emission computerized tomography/computed tomograph imaging in our clinic between December 2017 and January 2019, without coronary artery disease (CAD) history, followed by CA were included in the study. CA was considered positive when there is a stenosis of 70% or more in at least one coronary vessel. The summed stress score, rest score, and differential score; total perfusion deficit (TPD); and the defect’s extent obtained from non-attenuation-corrected (NC) and attenuation-corrected (AC) images of 80 patients were evaluated using the Mann-Whitney U test. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. Results: The scores obtained from NC and AC images showed a significant difference between the two groups for all scores except for the extent and TPD scores at rest from AC images. The applied ROC curves’ highest diagnostic value was determined as the TPD score at stress (TPDS) obtained from NC images (area under the curve: 0.880, 95% confidence interval, 0.807-0.952, p<0.001). The cut-off value obtained for the TPDS from the ROC curve was found to be 5.5. Conclusion: The scores obtained from NC images have more power to detect CAD than those obtained from AC images. Patients with no prior CAD history with TPDS score higher than 5 in MPS should be referred for CA with priority

🔖

Cite This Article

BEKİS, R., ŞEN, N. P. K., ŞENTÜRK, B., AKDENİZ, B. (2022). The Comparison of Quantitative Evaluation Results of the MPS SPECT/CT and Coronary Angiography: Determining the Most Valuable Quantitative Evaluation Score. Molecular Imaging and Radionuclide Therapy, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 3, 169–176. https://ajindex.com/articles/425718

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Sanchis-Gomar F, Perez-Quilis C, Leischik R, Lucia A. Epidemiology of coronary heart disease and acute coronary syndrome. Ann Transl Med 2016;4:256
  2. Libby P, Theroux P. Pathophysiology of coronary artery disease. Circulation 2005;111:3481-3488
  3. Fathala A. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: techniques, interpretation, indications and reporting. Ann Saudi Med 2011;31:625-634
  4. Athanasiou LS, Fotiadis DI, Michalis LK. Atherosclerotic plaque characterization methods based on coronary imaging. 1st Ed. London: Elsevier; 2017. p. 23-28
  5. Noto TJ Jr, Johnson LW, Krone R, Weaver WF, Clark DA, Kramer JR Jr, Vetrovec GW. Cardiac catheterization 1990: a report of the Registry of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions (SCA&I). Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1991;24:75-83
  6. Notghi A, Low CS. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: past, present and future. Br J Radiol 2011;84:S229-236
  7. Seo Y, Mari C, Hasegawa BH. Technological development and advances in single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography. Semin Nucl Med 2008;38:177-198
  8. Czaja M, Wygoda Z, Duszańska A, Szczerba D, Głowacki J, Gąsior M, Wasilewski JP. Interpreting myocardial perfusion scintigraphy using single-photon emission computed tomography. Part 1. Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol 2017;14:192-199
  9. Lecchi M, Malaspina S, Scabbio C, Gaudieri V, Del Sole A. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy dosimetry: optimal use of SPECT and SPECT/ CT technologies in stress-first imaging protocol. Clin Transl Imaging 2016;4:491-498
  10. Hayes SW, De Lorenzo A, Hachamovitch R, Dhar SC, Hsu P, Cohen I, Friedman JD, Kang X, Berman DS. Prognostic implications of combined prone and supine acquisitions in patients with equivocal or abnormal supine myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1633-1640
  11. Kakhki VRD, Sadeghi R, Torabian-Kakhki M, Rad MP, Sadri K. Semi-quantitative segmental perfusion scoring in myocardial perfusion SPECT: Visual vs. automated analysis. Iranian Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2014;22:64-69
  12. Yoda S, Nakanishi K, Tano A, Hori Y, Suzuki Y, Matsumoto N, Hirayama A. Validation of automated quantification of nuclear cardiology in Japanese patients using total perfusion deficits: Comparison with visual assessment. J Cardiol 2014;63:350-357
  13. Berman DS, Kang X, Gransar H, Gerlach J, Friedman JD, Hayes SW, Thomson LE, Hachamovitch R, Shaw LJ, Slomka PJ, Yang LD, Germano G. Quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion abnormality on SPECT myocardial perfus