SNM Annual Meeting Abstracts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     




J Nucl Med. 2011; 52 (Supplement 1):2434
This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jacobs, C.
Right arrow Articles by Spies, S.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Jacobs, C.
Right arrow Articles by Spies, S.

Technologist Student Abstracts

Technologist Student Scientific Papers III

Accuracy of PET versus SPECT for myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI)

Christopher Jacobs1, Nancy McDonald1, Antonella Guardiola1, Lisa Riehle1 and Stewart Spies1

1 Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL

Abstract No. 2434

Objectives: Although conventional SPECT has become the accepted technique for MPI, cardiac PET has begun to gain widespread utilization in the evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of PET vs SPECT for MPI when compared to cardiac catheterization (cath) results.

Methods: The study consisted of 798 patients referred for MPI; 398 PET and 400 SPECT. PET MPI utilized a dipyridamole rest-stress imaging protocol with attenuation correction and Rb-82 using a dedicated PET system. SPECT MPI was conducted using a dual isotope rest-pharmacological stress imaging protocol. Studies were evaluated as normal, abnormal, or equivocal and location of defect was noted. Abnormal cath results were defined as ≥50% lesion of the left main and/or ≥70% lesion in the left anterior descending, left circumflex, or right coronary artery. Cath and previous image results were compared for matching lesions and defects, assessing accuracy of the respective imaging procedure. A total of 174 patients (79 PET, 95 SPECT) were referred for cath. Of them, 106 had CAD (51 PET, 55 SPECT).

Results: Image and cath results were correlated. Table 1 displays image, cath correlation results, sensitivity and specificity of PET and SPECT MPI.

Conclusions: Both PET and SPECT MPI are sensitive tests for diagnosing and evaluating the extent of CAD. PET is superior to SPECT because it offers increased image quality and speed, with less radiation exposure. The low specificity noted is likely due to referral bias (normal studies not referred for cath). Results may be limited due to other factors not considered. Further examination is warranted


Figure 01
View larger version (47K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 1. Correlation Data

 




This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jacobs, C.
Right arrow Articles by Spies, S.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Jacobs, C.
Right arrow Articles by Spies, S.