Diagnostic Efficiency of Quantification of Myocardial Blood Flow and Coronary Flow Reserve with CZT Dynamic SPECT Imaging for Patients with Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: a Comparative Study with Traditional Semi-quantitative Evaluation
Overview
Affiliations
Background: Myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantitation with cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) dynamic single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is being increasingly investigated toward clinical utilization.
Methods: In this prospective study, forty-nine patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD) underwent a rest/adenosine triphosphate (ATP) stress dynamic and routine gated myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) by CZT SPECT and then received coronary angiography (CAG). Quantitative diagnosis from the dynamic SPECT and a flow diagram was automatically obtained by the dedicated software and compared with the result of semi-quantitative analysis with gated MPI using the angiographic stenosis as the reference standard.
Results: When stenosis ≥50% was considered at the participant level, the sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy (AC) of the quantitative diagnosis were higher than semi-quantitative method as (84.4% 65.6%, 88.2% 70.6%, 93.1% 80.8%, 75.0% 52.2%, 85.7% 67.3%) (all P<0.05). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis generated the optimal critical value as 1.86 and 1.61 mL/min/g for stress MBF (sMBF) and MFR, respectively. The diagnosis performance of the quantitative diagnosis was higher than semi-quantitative method as (78.9% 68.4%, 63.3% 60.0%, 57.7% 52.0%, 82.6% 75.0%, 69.4% 63.3%) for the criteria of ≥75% stenosis on CAG (all P<0.05) with optimal critical values as 1.71 and 1.15 mL/min/g. There was no significant difference between sMBF and MFR.
Conclusions: The diagnostic efficiency by using the quantitative method of CZT dynamic SPECT imaging is superior to traditional semi-quantitative gated MPI for the diagnosis of CAD, which improved the diagnostic specificity and accuracy when the critical was stenosis ≥50%.
Zavadovsky K, Vorobyeva D, Mochula O, Mochula A, Maltseva A, Bayev A Front Nucl Med. 2024; 2:935539.
PMID: 39354978 PMC: 11440855. DOI: 10.3389/fnume.2022.935539.
Ding X, Cui L, Li J, Cao J, Ding M, Wang H Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2024; 40(9):1919-1930.
PMID: 38960945 DOI: 10.1007/s10554-024-03182-z.
Cui L, Wang Y, Chen W, Huang P, Tang Z, Wang J Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2024; 14(6):3816-3827.
PMID: 38846287 PMC: 11151247. DOI: 10.21037/qims-23-1260.
Mochula A, Maltseva A, Kopeva K, Grakova E, Mochula O, Zavadovsky K J Clin Med. 2024; 13(5).
PMID: 38592092 PMC: 10932033. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13051271.
DAntonio A, Mannarino T Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023; 50(13):3806-3808.
PMID: 37535108 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-023-06358-2.