Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2009;2:290-298
Published online before print May 11, 2009, doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.108.815811
Free Article
This Article
Free upon publication Free Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2/4/290    most recent
CIRCIMAGING.108.815811v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Abidov, A.
Right arrow Articles by Berman, D. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Abidov, A.
Right arrow Articles by Berman, D. S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Nuclear cardiology and PET

Original Articles

Are Shades of Gray Prognostically Useful in Reporting Myocardial Perfusion Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography?

Aiden Abidov, MD, PhD; Rory Hachamovitch, MD, MSc; Sean W. Hayes, MD; John D. Friedman, MD; Ishac Cohen, PhD; Xingping Kang, MD; Ling De Yang, MD; Louise Thomson, MBChB, FRACP; Guido Germano, PhD, MBA; Piotr Slomka, PhD and Daniel S. Berman, MD

From the Department of Imaging and the Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology (A.A., R.H., S.W.H., J.D.F., I.C., X.K., L.D.Y., L.T., G.G., D.S.B.), Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (P.S.), Los Angeles, Calif; and the Division of Cardiology (A.A.), William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich.

Correspondence to Daniel S. Berman, MD, Department of Imaging, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Taper Building, A1258, Los Angeles, CA 90048. E-mail bermand{at}cshs.org

Received August 19, 2008; accepted April 27, 2009.

Background— We have advocated the use of a 5-category "normal," "probably normal," "equivocal," "probably abnormal," and "definitely abnormal" approach to final interpretation of myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). The prognostic value of expressing levels of certainty compared with a dichotomous normal/abnormal classification or categories for summed stress scores is unclear.

Methods and Results— Myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) was visually assessed using a standard semiquantitative approach, yielding summed scores that were used for preliminary interpretation using 5 levels of certainty. The interpreter was permitted to then shift the level of certainty in the final interpretation by 1 degree, based on nonperfusion MPS variables and available clinical information. To examine the prognostic value of expressing levels of clinical certainty, we evaluated 20 740 unique consecutive patients who underwent rest Tl-201/stress Tc-99m sestamibi MPS (34.3% vasodilator stress), of whom 845 (4.4%) were lost to follow-up and 1695 were excluded from prognostic analysis due to an early revascularization (<60 days after MPS). The remaining 18 200 patients (59.1% men; age, 65±13 years) were followed up for cardiac death for a mean of 2.7±1.7 years. During the follow-up, a total of 591 cardiac death events occurred. By univariable analysis, there were substantial differences in the distribution of follow-up cardiac death by the category of clinical MPS certainty. The clinical certainty was found to be an independent multivariable predictor of cardiac death in the study population and better identified patients at increased risk of cardiac death than the approaches based solely on the standard categories of summed perfusion scores or based solely on categories of segmental perfusion scores.

Conclusions— The use of multicategory reporting of MPS results incorporating nonperfusion MPS results and clinical information enhances risk stratification compared with both a dichotomous normal/abnormal approach or approaches based solely on segmental categories of perfusion scores. Whether this enhanced risk stratification based on the clinical certainty of the MPS interpretation leads to a more effective therapeutic regimen, tailored to the individual patient’s need, requires further prospective evaluation.

Key Words: myocardial perfusion imaging • image interpretation • prognosis


 

CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE