4.6 Article

Comparative Accuracy of CT Attenuation-Corrected and Non-Attenuation-Corrected SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging

期刊

CLINICAL NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 332-338

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e31823ea16b

关键词

myocardial perfusion imaging; attenuation correction; CT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether computed tomography based-attenuation correction (CT-AC) provides any advantage over non-attenuation-corrected (NAC) images for qualitative and quantitative analysis of single photon emission tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). Methods: We retrospectively evaluated data of 171 patients who underwent stress rest MPI SPECT/CT as per standard protocol. Angiography done within +/- 3 months of MPI was taken as reference standard. Two readers independently evaluated CT-AC and NAC images. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was done using >= 50% and >= 70% stenosis as cutoff. The size and severity of perfusion defects were also compared on CT-AC and NAC images. Results: For both readers, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was larger for CT-AC images than for NAC images at both >= 50% and >= 70% cutoff, but the difference was not significant. CT-AC images had significantly lower sensitivity for detecting right coronary artery disease compared with NAC (29% vs. 50% for reader 1 and 25.8% vs. 43.2% for reader 2). However, the specificity improved with CT-AC. Inferior defects were significantly smaller in CT-AC than NAC (P = 0.0002), with no significant difference for anterior defects (P = 0.544). There was significant variation in severity between CT-AC and NAC images for both overall (P = 0.001) as well as for inferior defects (P = 0.0007), but not for anterior defects (P = 0.279). Conclusion: In our study, the CT-based AC improved the specificity but decreased the sensitivity leading to nonsignificant improvement in overall diagnostic accuracy of Tc-99m sestamibi/tetrofosmin MPI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据