ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2006
A comparison of Tl-201, Tc-99m sestamibi, and Tc-99m tetrofosmin myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in patients with mild to moderate coronary stenosis.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dual isotope stress Tl-201 and rest Tc-99m CZT SPECT: Are we truly leveraging CZT technology?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019Article
- Stress-only imaging in patients with prior SPECT MPI: a simulation study.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2012Article
- Tetrofosmin early time gated post-stress single-photon emission computed tomography imaging: feasibility and potential benefits.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThallium 201, technetium 99m sestamibi (MIBI), and Tc-99m tetrofosmin differ in their myocardial uptake characteristics. This may make the technetium tracers less sensitive for detecting mild to moderate coronary stenosis. METHODS AND
resultsWe identified 163 patients with angiographic mild to moderate stenosis (50%-89%) and coexistent severe disease (88/163 patients) from a previous study of patients who received either thallium, MIBI, or tetrofosmin for myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Summed segmental uptake scores were used to assess myocardial perfusion of territories supplied by the mildly to moderately stenotic vessels. Mean (+/- SD) summed stress uptake scores in the left anterior descending artery territory were 21.4 +/- 3.8, 21.6 +/- 4.2, and 22.1 +/- 2.3 for thallium, MIBI, and tetrofosmin, respectively (P = .7); mean summed difference uptake scores were 1.2 +/- 1.8, 1.1 +/- 1.9, and 1.0 +/- 1.1, respectively (P = .8). In the non-left anterior descending artery territory, mean summed stress uptake scores were 32.5 +/- 6.3, 34.0 +/- 6.3, and 34.5 +/- 4.7 for thallium, MIBI, and tetrofosmin, respectively (P = .4), whereas mean summed difference scores were 1.9 +/- 2.6, 1.7 +/- 2.2, and 1.7 +/- 2.3, respectively (P = .9).
conclusionThere were no significant differences between the tracers for the summed uptake scores. This suggests that the 3 tracers are comparable in clinical practice for assessing the extent and severity of perfusion abnormalities arising from mild to moderate coronary artery stenosis, especially in the presence of coexistent severe disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.