4.6 Article

Comparison Between Ultrafast and Standard Single-Photon Emission CT in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease A Pilot Study

Journal

CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING
Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 51-58

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.110.957399

Keywords

tomography emission-computed single-photon; myocardial ischemia; coronary artery disease

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background-A novel technology has been developed for ultrafast (UF) single-photon emission CT (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging by using a pinhole collimation design and multiple cadmium zinc telluride crystal arrays. The purpose of this study was to compare myocardial perfusion imaging obtained by UF-SPECT with standard (S) SPECT in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Methods and Results-A total of 34 patients underwent single-day Tc-99m-tetrofosmin stress/rest myocardial perfusion imaging. UF-SPECT was performed 10 minutes before S-SPECT. Images were qualitatively analyzed, and the summed stress score and summed rest score were calculated. The segmental tracer uptake value (percentage of maximum myocardial uptake) also was quantified for both UF- and S-SPECT. When only 29 of 34 patients with significant coronary lesions were analyzed, the summed stress score was 10.1+/-4.4 versus 6.4+/-2.9, respectively, for UF- and S-SPECT (P=0.002). Qualitative and quantitative per-patient analysis showed similar results in detection of coronary artery disease for UF- and S-SPECT. In contrast, per-vessel analysis demonstrated higher regional sensitivity of UF-versus S-SPECT. UF-SPECT showed higher sensitivity in detecting multivessel disease (P=0.003) versus S-SPECT. Conclusions-This pilot study confirms that UF-SPECT provides high-quality fast myocardial perfusion imaging and suggests that it may allow a more-accurate evaluation of both extent and severity of myocardial ischemia in patients with coronary artery disease. (Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:51-58.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available