ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2024
Real-world evidence study on the impact of SPECT MPI, PET MPI, cCTA and stress echocardiography on downstream healthcare utilisation in patients with coronary artery disease in the US.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2024. 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.
- Downstream invasive coronary procedures following PET Versus SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: a propensity-matched analysis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Emerging Applications of Positron Emission Tomography in Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with a large clinical and economic burden. However, consensus on the optimal approach to CAD diagnosis is lacking. This study sought to compare downstream healthcare resource utilisation following different cardiac imaging modalities, to inform test selection for CAD diagnosis.
methodsClaims and electronic health records data from the Decision Resources Group Real-World Evidence US Data Repository were analysed for 2.5 million US patients who underwent single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI), positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (PET MPI), coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA), or stress echocardiography between January 2016 and March 2018. Patients were stratified into nine cohorts based on suspected or existing CAD diagnosis, pre-test risk, and prior events or interventions. Downstream healthcare utilisation, including additional diagnostic imaging, coronary angiography, and cardiac-related health system encounters, was compared by cohort and index imaging modality.
resultsAmong patients with suspected CAD diagnosed within 3 months of the index test, PET MPI was associated with lower downstream utilisation; 25-37% of patients who underwent PET MPI required additional downstream healthcare resources compared with 40-49% of patients who received SPECT MPI, 35-41% of patients who underwent cCTA, and 44-47% of patients who received stress echocardiography. Patients who underwent PET MPI experienced fewer acute cardiac events (5.3-9.4%) and generally had lower rates of healthcare encounters (0.8-4.1%) and invasive coronary angiography (ICA, 15.4-24.2%) than those who underwent other modalities. SPECT MPI was associated with more downstream ICA (31.3-38.2%) and a higher rate of cardiac events (9.5-13.2%) compared with PET MPI (5.3-9.4%) and cCTA (6.9-9.9%). Across all cohorts, additional diagnostic imaging was 1.6 to 4.7 times more frequent with cCTA compared with PET MPI.
conclusionChoice of imaging modality for CAD diagnosis impacts downstream healthcare utilisation. PET MPI was associated with lower utilisation across multiple metrics compared with other imaging modalities studied.
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.