Key result
PET myocardial perfusion imaging with 82Rb reduced downstream diagnostic arteriography rates to 13%, compared to 31-34% with SPECT MPI (P<0.0001), with 30% cost savings and similar 1-year outcomes.
Why the study?
Does PET myocardial perfusion imaging with 82Rb reduce downstream utilization of diagnostic arteriography compared with SPECT in patients with intermediate pretest likelihood of coronary disease?
Cohort (n=8,087)
Yes
Does PET myocardial perfusion imaging with 82Rb reduce downstream utilization of diagnostic arteriography compared with SPECT in patients with intermediate pretest likelihood of coronary disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 13% vs 34%
p-value: p=<0.0001
PET MPI with 82Rb significantly reduces downstream invasive coronary arteriography, revascularization, and costs compared to SPECT MPI, without compromising 1-year clinical outcomes.
May lower downstream testing and costs versus SPECT; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
UNLABELLED: We hypothesized that PET myocardial perfusion imaging with (82)Rb (PET MPI), would reduce downstream utilization of diagnostic arteriography, compared with SPECT, in patients matched for pretest likelihood of coronary disease (pCAD). PET MPI is more accurate for assessment of impaired coronary flow reserve compared with SPECT MPI, potentially reducing the demand for subsequent arteriography, percutaneous trans-coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), with attendant cost savings, while avoiding a negative impact on coronary events. METHODS: The frequency of diagnostic arteriography, revascularization, costs, and 1-y clinical outcomes in 2,159 patients studied with PET MPI was compared with 2 control groups studied with SPECT MPI matched to the PET group by pCAD: an internal control group of 102 patients and an external SPECT control group of 5,826 patients. CAD management costs were approximated with realistic global fee estimates. RESULTS: Arteriography rates were 0.34 and 0.31 for the external and internal control SPECT groups and 0.13 for the patients studied with PET (P < 0.0001). pCAD averaged 0.39 in patients studied with PET MPI, and in the external SPECT control group, and 0.37 in the internal SPECT controls. Revascularization rates were 0.13 and 0.11 for external and internal SPECT patients and 0.06 for the PET group (P < 0.0001; P < 0.01), with a cost savings of 30% noted for PET patients, with no significant difference in cardiac death or myocardial infarction at 1-y follow-up. CONCLUSION: PET MPI in patients with intermediate pCAD results in a >50% reduction in invasive coronary arteriography and CABG, a 30% cost savings, and excellent clinical outcomes at 1 y compared with SPECT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Merhige et al. (2007) conducted a cohort in Coronary Disease (n=8,087). PET myocardial perfusion imaging with 82Rb vs. SPECT MPI was evaluated on Diagnostic arteriography rate (p=<0.0001). PET myocardial perfusion imaging with 82Rb reduced downstream diagnostic arteriography rates to 13%, compared to 31-34% with SPECT MPI (P<0.0001), with 30% cost savings and similar 1-year outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: