Key result
Expert visual reading of MPI correlates more strongly with angiographic scores than automated analysis.
Why the study?
Little evidence is available regarding the actual incremental clinical diagnostic performance of automated myocardial perfusion imaging analysis compared to expert reading.
Does automated MPI analysis improve correlation with angiographic score compared to expert reading in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease?
Observational (n=306)
No
Does automated MPI analysis improve correlation with angiographic score compared to expert reading in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease?
Expert visual evaluation of myocardial perfusion imaging correlates better with angiographic severity of coronary artery disease than automated software analysis.
Expert visual MPI reading may better correlate with angiographic severity than automated analysis; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Background and Objectives: Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) has an important role in the non-invasive investigation of coronary artery disease. The interpretation of MPI studies is mainly based on the visual evaluation of the reconstructed images, while automated quantitation methods may add useful data for each patient. However, little evidence is currently available regarding the actual incremental clinical diagnostic performance of automated MPI analysis. In the present study, we aimed to assess the correlation between automated measurements of Summed Stress Score (SSS), Summed Rest Score (SRS) and Summed Difference Score (SDS), with the corresponding expert reading values, using coronary angiography as the gold standard. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted at the Nuclear Medicine Laboratory of the University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece, οver an one-year period (January 2019–January 2020). 306 patients, with known or suspected coronary artery disease, were enrolled in the study. Each participant underwent a coronary angiography, prior to or after the scintigraphic study (within a three-month period). Either symptom-limited treadmill test, or pharmacologic testing using adenosine or regadenoson, was performed in all participants, and the scintigraphic studies were carried out using technetium 99m (99mTc) tetrofosmin (one-day stress/rest protocol). Coronary angiographies were scored according to a 4-point scoring system (angiographic score; O: normal study, 1: one-vessel disease, 2: two-vessel disease, 3: three-vessel disease). Moreover, automated measurements of SSS, SRS and SDS were derived by three widely available software packages (Emory Cardiac Toolbox, Myovation, Quantitative Perfusion SPECT). Results: Interclass Correlation Coefficients of SSS, SRS and SDS between expert reading and software packages were moderate to excellent. Visually defined SSS, SRS and SDS were significantly correlated with the corresponding results of all software packages. However, visually defined SSS, SRS and SDS were more strongly correlated with the angiographic score, indicating a better performance of expert reading when compared to automated analysis. Conclusions: Based on our results, visual evaluation continues to have a crucial role for the interpretation of MPI images. Software packages can provide automated measurements of several parameters, particularly contributing to the investigation of cases with ambiguous scintigraphic findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Angelidis et al. (2022) conducted an observational in known or suspected coronary artery disease (n=306). Automated analysis of myocardial perfusion imaging vs. Expert visual reading was evaluated on Correlation of Summed Stress Score (SSS), Summed Rest Score (SRS), and Summed Difference Score (SDS) with the angiographic score. Expert visual reading of myocardial perfusion imaging correlated more strongly with the angiographic score than automated analysis, demonstrating better diagnostic performance.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: