ArticleMedicine2018
Adding value to myocardial perfusion SPECT/CT studies that include coronary calcium CT: Detection of incidental pulmonary arterial dilatation.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the incidence of undiagnosed pulmonary arterial dilatation using the gated computed tomography (CT) images acquired in patients with an otherwise normal Tc-sestamibi single-photon-emission CT (SPECT)/CT myocardial perfusion study.This was a retrospective review of 200 consecutive patients (100 men, mean age 58.7 years) who underwent a myocardial perfusion Tc-sestamibi SPECT/CT study with normal perfusion and with gated CT images acquired for coronary calcium scoring. The CT images were reviewed using a previously validated mean main pulmonary artery diameter (mPAD) measurement method which has been correlated with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Clinical information on multiple comorbidities was also retrieved. Previously reported mPAD cutoffs (>29.5 and >31.5 mm) were used to stratify patients.Indications for the study included dyspnea on exertion (58.9%), preoperative workup (22.3%), and chest pain (13.9%). The mean mPAD measurement was 26.3 mm (±0.5). There was a significant correlation between body mass index and mPAD (correlation coefficient [ρ]: 0.28; P < .001). About 23% (46/200) of patients had mPAD > 29.5 mm and 15.0% (30/200) of patients had mPAD > 31.5 mm. From previous work, these cutoffs have a sensitivity and specificity for PAH of 70.8%, 79.4% and 52.0%, 90.2%, respectively. Among patients undergoing a preoperative myocardial perfusion study, 35.6% (16/45) patients had mPAD > 29.5 mm and 26.7% (12/45) patients had mPAD > 31.5 mm. There was a higher prevalence of congestive heart failure (62.5% vs 19.6%; P < .001) and hypertension (78.3% vs 21.7%; P < .02) in patients with mPAD > 29.5 mm. Similarly, there was a high prevalence of congestive heart failure (P < .001), hyperlipidemia (P < .04), and hypertension (P < .04) in patients with mPAD > 31.5 mm.Incidental pulmonary arterial dilatation (mPAD ≥ 29.5 mm) can be detected in a large number of patients with normal myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and correlates with multiple different comorbidities. The mPAD can be measured in all patients undergoing gated imaging as part of a myocardial perfusion study, and PAH may be considered as an alternative explanation for symptoms in some patients without perfusion deficits. The data to make this potential diagnosis is already being acquired and represents an opportunity to add value to the interpretations of otherwise negative myocardial perfusion studies.
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.