Key result
MPI in asymptomatic T2D shows no significant difference in MACE vs non-diabetics despite abnormal perfusion.
Why the study?
The prognostic value of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging in asymptomatic diabetic patients remains uncertain.
Does routine myocardial perfusion imaging provide prognostic value for major cardiac events in clinically referred asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes?
Observational (n=73)
No
Does routine myocardial perfusion imaging provide prognostic value for major cardiac events in clinically referred asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes?
Absolute Event Rate: 8.1% vs 0%
p-value: p=0.240
Routine myocardial perfusion imaging in unselected asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes has limited short-term prognostic value due to low overall cardiac event rates.
Limited short-term prognostic value cautions against routine MPI in asymptomatic T2DM; leaves open utility with longer follow-up in higher-risk cohorts.
Introduction. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of coronary artery disease, which frequently remains clinically silent. Myocardial perfusion imaging with single-photon emission computed tomography is widely used for the detection of myocardial ischemia and risk stratification, but its prognostic value in asymptomatic diabetic patients remains uncertain. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate myocardial perfusion imaging findings and 2-year cardiac outcomes in clinically referred asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods. This prospective observational study included 198 consecutive outpatients referred for stressrest SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging because of intermediate clinical suspicion of coronary artery disease. The study population consisted of 98 patients with type 2 diabetes and 100 patients without diabetes. Among them, 73 participants were classified as asymptomatic based on structured clinical interviews (37 diabetic and 36 nondiabetic patients). Myocardial perfusion abnormalities were defined as a summed stress score ≥4, while inducible ischemia was defined as a summed difference score ≥2. Participants were followed for approximately 24 months for the occurrence of cardiac events including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization. Eventfree survival was analyzed using Kaplan–Meier methodology. Results. Abnormal myocardial perfusion (SSS ≥4) was detected in 18.9% of asymptomatic diabetic patients and 22.2% of asymptomatic nondiabetic patients (p = 0.727). Inducible ischemia (SDS ≥2) was present in 8.1% and 8.3% of participants, respectively (p = 0.98). During the twoyear followup period, three cardiac events occurred in the diabetic group (8.1%), including one cardiac death and two coronary revascularizations, while no events occurred in nondiabetic participants (p = 0.240). Kaplan–Meier analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in eventfree survival between diabetic and nondiabetic groups (logrank p = 0.083). Conclusions. Myocardial perfusion abnormalities were relatively frequent in clinically referred asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes; however, shortterm cardiac event rates were low. These findings suggest limited prognostic value of routine myocardial perfusion imaging in unselected asymptomatic diabetic populations and support a selective approach to noninvasive testing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stanković et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Type 2 diabetes mellitus with suspected coronary artery disease (n=73). SPECT Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) vs. Non-diabetic asymptomatic patients was evaluated on Major cardiac events (cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization) (p=0.240). Myocardial perfusion imaging in asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes revealed abnormal perfusion in 18.9% of cases, but the 2-year incidence of major cardiac events was low at 8.1% with no significant difference compared to non-diabetic controls.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: