ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2022
Myocardial flow reserve estimation with contemporary CZT-SPECT and
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility of Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion with CZT SPECT and SPECT/CT: Current Limitations and Recommendations for Future Improvements.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
- The Influence of Kinetic Models and Attenuation Correction on Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography (CZT SPECT)-Derived Myocardial Blood Flow and Reserve: Correlation with Invasive Angiography Data.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Including myocardial flow reserve by PET in prediction models: Ready to fly?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
- Myocardial perfusion reserve by CZT cameras: A journey inside coronary microvascular circulation. Is it time to leave yet?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
- Dose-consistent dynamic SPECT.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
- Review of cardiovascular imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology 2022: single photon emission computed tomography.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Review
- Precision of Myocardial Blood Flow and Flow Reserve Measurement During CZT SPECT Perfusion Imaging Processing: Intra- and Interobserver Variability.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2023Article
- Accuracy and Reproducibility of Myocardial Blood Flow Quantification by Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography Imaging in Patients With Known or Suspected Coronary Artery Disease.Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging · 2022Article
- Changing Paradigms in the Diagnosis of Ischemic Heart Disease by Multimodality Imaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPET myocardial flow reserve (MFR) has established diagnostic and prognostic value. Technological advances have now enabled SPECT MFR quantification. We investigated whether SPECT MFR precision is sufficient for clinical categorization of patients.
methodsValidation studies vs invasive flow measurements and PET MFR were reviewed to determine global SPECT MFR thresholds. Studies vs PET and a SPECT MFR repeatability study were used to establish imprecision in SPECT MFR measurements as the standard deviation of the difference between SPECT and PET MFR, or test-retest SPECT MFR. Simulations were used to evaluate the impact of SPECT MFR imprecision on confidence of clinically relevant categorization.
resultsBased on validation studies, the typical PET MFR categories were used for SPECT MFR classification (< 1.5, 1.5-2.0, > 2.0). Imprecision vs PET MFR ranged from 0.556 to 0.829, and test-retest imprecision was 0.781-0.878. Simulations showed correct classification of up to only 34% of patients when 1.5 ≤ true MFR ≤ 2.0. Categorization with high confidence (> 80%) was only achieved for extreme MFR values (< 1.0 or > 2.5), with correct classification in only 15% of patients in a typical lab with MFR of 1.8 ± 0.5.
conclusionsCurrent SPECT-derived estimates of MFR lack precision and require further optimization for clinical risk stratification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34426935What 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.