ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2022
Added value of coronary artery calcium score in the reporting of SPECT versus PET myocardial perfusion imaging.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inter-Observer Reliability in Myocardial Blood Flow Measurement Using Rb-82-PET/CT.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- The addition of coronary artery calcium to myocardial perfusion: Double or nothing?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKnowledge of coronary artery calcium score (CACS) influences the interpretation of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) with SPECT; however, the impact on PET interpretation remains unclear. We compared the added value of CACS to reporting MPI using SPECT vs PET.
methodsWe retrospectively included 412 patients. 206 patients who underwent Rb-82 PET were propensity-based matched to a cohort of 4018 patients who underwent cadmium-zinc-telluride SPECT MPI to obtain a comparable group of 206 SPECT patients. Next, we created four image sets: SPECT MPI-only, PET-only, SPECT + CACS, and PET + CACS. Two physicians interpreted the 824 images as normal, equivocal, or abnormal for ischemia or irreversible defects. Additionally, event rates were compared between PET and SPECT groups during 30-month follow-up.
resultsPET yielded more scans interpreted as normal than SPECT (88% vs 80%, respectively, P = 0.015). Adding CACS to SPECT increased the percentage of normal scans to 86% (P = 0.014), whereas this effect was absent for PET (90%, P = 0.77). Annualized event rates for images interpreted as normal did not differ and varied between 0.7 and 2.0% (P > 0.084).
conclusionAdding CACS correctly increased the percentage of normal scans for SPECT MPI but not for PET, possibly limiting the effect of adding CACS to reporting PET.
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.