Key result
Implementation of a PET-based myocardial perfusion imaging program significantly increased the identification of high-grade obstructive coronary artery disease compared to the preceding SPECT era (10.5% vs. 6.9%, OR 1.73).
Why the study?
Does a PET-based myocardial perfusion imaging program improve the identification of high-grade obstructive CAD and affect 1-year MACE compared to a SPECT-based program?
Cohort (n=14,594)
No
Does a PET-based myocardial perfusion imaging program improve the identification of high-grade obstructive CAD and affect 1-year MACE compared to a SPECT-based program?
Odds Ratio: 1.73 (95% CI 1.52–1.96)
Absolute Event Rate: 10.5% vs 6.9%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Implementation of a PET-based myocardial perfusion imaging program in a real-world setting improved the detection of high-grade obstructive CAD and increased appropriate revascularization rates compared to a SPECT-based program, without altering 1-year MACE.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac positron emission testing (PET) is more accurate than single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) at identifying coronary artery disease (CAD); however, the 2 modalities have not been thoroughly compared in a real-world setting. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 60-day catheterization outcomes and 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after the transition from a SPECT- to a PET-based myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) program. METHODS: MPI patients at Intermountain Medical Center from January 2011-December 2012 (the SPECT era, n = 6,777) and January 2014-December 2015 (the PET era, n = 7,817) were studied. Outcomes studied were 60-day coronary angiography, high-grade obstructive CAD, left main/severe 3-vessel disease, revascularization, and 1-year MACE-revascularization (MACE-revasc; death, myocardial infarction [MI], or revascularization >60 days). RESULTS: Patients were 64 ± 13 years old; 54% were male and 90% were of European descent; and 57% represented a screening population (no prior MI, revascularization, or CAD). During the PET era, compared with the SPECT era, a higher percentage of patients underwent coronary angiography (13.2% vs. 9.7%, P < 0.0001), had high-grade obstructive CAD (10.5% vs. 6.9%, P < 0.0001), had left main or severe 3-vessel disease (3.0% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.012), and had coronary revascularization (56.7% vs. 47.1%, P = 0.0001). Similar catheterization outcomes were seen when restricted to the screening population. There was no difference in 1-year MACE-revasc (PET [5.8%] vs. SPECT [5.3%], P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: The PET-based MPI program resulted in improved identification of patients with high-grade obstructive CAD, as well as a larger percentage of revascularization, thus resulting in fewer patients undergoing coronary angiography without revascularization. FUNDING: This observational study was funded using internal departmental funds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Knight et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Suspected coronary artery disease (n=14,594). PET-based myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) vs. SPECT-based myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) was evaluated on Identification of high-grade obstructive CAD within 60 days (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.52-1.96, p=<0.0001). Implementation of a PET-based myocardial perfusion imaging program significantly increased the identification of high-grade obstructive coronary artery disease compared to the preceding SPECT era (10.5% vs. 6.9%, OR 1.73).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: