ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2025
Comparison of global and regional myocardial blood flow quantification using dynamic solid-state detector SPECT and Tc-99 m-sestamibi or Tc-99 m-tetrofosmin in a routine clinical setting.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quantitative and semi-quantitative comparison of myocardial blood flow betweenQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Solid-state detector single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) enables the acquisition of dynamic data for calculation of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR). Here, we report about our experiences on routine clinical use and robustness using Tc-99 m-sestamibi and Tc-99 m-tetrofosmin. 307 patients underwent dynamic list-mode myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and standard static MPI for clinical workup of coronary artery disease on a dedicated cardiac SPECT camera. After exclusion of 33 scans, 274 scans were eligible for MBF and MFR calculation using a 1-tissue-compartment model. Attenuation correction was performed for all patients using an external computed tomogram. Patients underwent stress-only scans, both stress and rest scans or rest-only scans using Tc-99 m-tetrofosmin or Tc-99 m-sestamibi. 30 patients without known cardiovascular comorbidities and without perfusion defect on static scans were compared in a sub analysis. Global stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) was significantly higher than rest MBF (2.3 vs. 1.1 ml/min/g; p < 0.001), and showed a high variability among individuals. Global myocardial flow reserve (MFR) was 2.1 (range 0.5-7.8). An analysis of 30 patients without known cardiovascular comorbidities yielded similar stress MBF measures for Tc-99 m-sestamibi and Tc-99 m-tetrofosmin (3.1 ± 1.2 vs. 2.8 ± 0.9 ml/min/g; p = 0.429). The use of attenuation correction lead to systematically lower MBF measures. Patients who underwent a one-day protocol had notably higher rest MBF (1.2 ± 0.5 vs. 1.0 ± 0.46 ml/min/g; p = 0.009) and consequently a lower MFR. Summed defect scores from standard static scans and presence of cardiovascular comorbidities negatively impacted MBF and MFR. Quantitative SPECT MBF and MFR in a clinical routine setting yields flow measures in range of expectation at an albeit wide range and is comprehensibly linked with results from standard static scan and patients history of cardiovascular diseases. Use of one-day protocols and attenuation correction systematically alters quantitative results. However, SPECT-derived MBF and MFR lack clinical reliability due to less validated reference ranges and high inter-individual variability.
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.