ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
Downstream invasive coronary procedures following PET Versus SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: a propensity-matched analysis.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2026. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis using the TriNetX Research Network. Adults undergoing PET or SPECT MPI without prior coronary revascularization were identified. The primary endpoint was invasive coronary angiography (ICA) within 90 days, with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a secondary endpoint. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed to adjust for baseline differences.
resultsA total of 33,822 propensity-matched patients were included (PET n=16,911; SPECT n=16,911). At 90 days, ICA occurred less frequently after PET compared with SPECT (6.0% vs 6.8%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.97; p=0.005). Conversely, PCI was more frequent following PET (0.9% vs 0.4%; RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.51-2.65; p<0.001), indicating a higher angiography-to-PCI procedural yield. These findings were consistent across sex-based subgroups.
conclusionIn a large real-world cohort, PET MPI was associated with fewer downstream invasive coronary angiograms and a higher procedural PCI yield compared with SPECT. These findings suggest that PET may improve selection of patients for invasive evaluation and enhance efficiency of downstream care.
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.