Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2025
Diagnostic accuracy of low-dose myocardial perfusion imaging in a real-world setting.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Perrin Mathieu, Claudin Marine, Djaballah Karim, Boursier Caroline, Verger Antoine, Imbert Laetitia, Roch Véronique, Doyen Matthieu, Marie Loïc, Karcher Gilles, Popovic Batric, Lamiral Zohra, Camenzind Edoardo, Marie Pierre-Yves
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This large-scale study analyzes factors affecting the diagnostic accuracy of low-dose myocardial perfusion imaging and correlation with coronary angiography in a real-world practice.
METHODS: We compared data extracted from routine reports of (i) low-dose [99mTc]sestamibi stress-MPI performed with no attenuation correction and predominantly exercise stress testing and (ii) the corresponding coronary angiography.
RESULTS: We considered 1070 pairs of coronary angiography/stress-MPI results reported by 11 physicians. Mean MPI effective dose was 4.5 ± 2.1 mSv. The extent of MPI-ischemia was predictive of >70% but not 50%-70% coronary stenoses. A positive test was associated with a sensitivity of 74.7% (413/553) and a specificity of 53.2% (275/517) for >70% stenosis detection. Positive predictive values were lower in patients with left bundle branch block or pacemakers (LBBB/PM) (45.6% vs 64.7%, P = .006) and markedly higher for patients with MPI-ischemia ≥3 segments or associated with ST-segment depression (75.0% (165/220)) as compared to those with <3 segments MPI-ischemia, MPI-infarction or isolated ST-segment depression (57% (248.0/435), P < .001). Negative predictive values were lower for patients with previous coronary artery disease (CAD) history (58.3%), male (61.0%), and elderly patients (59.6%) (vs 72.1%, 79.2%, and 72.4%, respectively, all P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Routine results from low-dose stress-MPI, predominantly associated with exercise stress testing and uncorrected for attenuation, correlate with real-world coronary angiography results. However, this correlation is lower than that achieved with conventional study designs and affected by the definition of significant CAD and context variables (LBBB/PM, CAD history, sex, and age). Better consideration of these interacting factors could improve patient monitoring.
METHODS: We compared data extracted from routine reports of (i) low-dose [99mTc]sestamibi stress-MPI performed with no attenuation correction and predominantly exercise stress testing and (ii) the corresponding coronary angiography.
RESULTS: We considered 1070 pairs of coronary angiography/stress-MPI results reported by 11 physicians. Mean MPI effective dose was 4.5 ± 2.1 mSv. The extent of MPI-ischemia was predictive of >70% but not 50%-70% coronary stenoses. A positive test was associated with a sensitivity of 74.7% (413/553) and a specificity of 53.2% (275/517) for >70% stenosis detection. Positive predictive values were lower in patients with left bundle branch block or pacemakers (LBBB/PM) (45.6% vs 64.7%, P = .006) and markedly higher for patients with MPI-ischemia ≥3 segments or associated with ST-segment depression (75.0% (165/220)) as compared to those with <3 segments MPI-ischemia, MPI-infarction or isolated ST-segment depression (57% (248.0/435), P < .001). Negative predictive values were lower for patients with previous coronary artery disease (CAD) history (58.3%), male (61.0%), and elderly patients (59.6%) (vs 72.1%, 79.2%, and 72.4%, respectively, all P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Routine results from low-dose stress-MPI, predominantly associated with exercise stress testing and uncorrected for attenuation, correlate with real-world coronary angiography results. However, this correlation is lower than that achieved with conventional study designs and affected by the definition of significant CAD and context variables (LBBB/PM, CAD history, sex, and age). Better consideration of these interacting factors could improve patient monitoring.