Key result
Permanent pacemaker implantation is linked to a ~57% lower PPV for Tl-201 myocardial perfusion exams.
Why the study?
Patients with permanent pacemaker implantation may have altered coronary perfusion patterns that could influence myocardial perfusion examination accuracy, but previous studies had limited statistical power.
Does permanent pacemaker implantation reduce the positive predictive value of thallium-201 myocardial perfusion examination for detecting ischemic heart disease?
Cohort (n=934)
No
Does permanent pacemaker implantation reduce the positive predictive value of thallium-201 myocardial perfusion examination for detecting ischemic heart disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 28.6% vs 66.2%
p-value: p=<0.001
Thallium-201 myocardial perfusion imaging has a significantly lower positive predictive value in patients with permanent pacemakers, making it inappropriate for risk stratification in this population.
PPM implantation was associated with lower thallium-201 MPI PPV; leaves open whether alternative modalities improve accuracy in this population.
OBJECTIVES: Patients with permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation may have altered coronary perfusion patterns that may influence the accuracy of myocardial perfusion examination modalities, which was observed in previous studies but with limited statistic power. Our aim was to examine the performance of thallium-201 (TL-201) myocardial perfusion examination in patients with implanted PPM. METHODS: Data of consecutive patients from our institution who had coronary angiography examination followed by TL-201 myocardial perfusion examination in pairs within 1 year were collected between January 2010 and December 2016 and were divided into PPM and control groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to compare the positive predictive value (PPV) of perfusion examinations. RESULTS: A total of 934 pairs of studies were evaluated, with 81 in the PPM group and 853 controls. The PPV decreased significantly in the PPM group (28.2 vs. 62.9%, P < 0.001). The finding of large (>20%) ischemic areas correlated significantly with all-cause mortality in the control group (OR, 2.34; P = 0.001), but not in the PPM group (OR,1.05; P = 0.943). After PSM, the PPV was still significantly lower in the PPM group than in the non-PPM group (28.6 vs. 66.2%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Study results do not support the appropriateness of using TL-201 perfusion examinations for risk stratification in patients with implanted PPM.Video Abstract: http://links.lww.com/NMC/A181.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Ischemic heart disease (n=934). Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation vs. No PPM (control group) was evaluated on Positive predictive value (PPV) of TL-201 myocardial perfusion examinations (p=<0.001). Permanent pacemaker implantation significantly reduced the positive predictive value of thallium-201 myocardial perfusion examinations compared to controls (28.6% vs. 66.2%, P < 0.001 after PSM).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: