Diagnostic Accuracy of Cardiac Positron Emission Tomography Versus Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography for Coronary Artery Disease

Author:

Parker Matthew W.1,Iskandar Aline1,Limone Brendan1,Perugini Andrew1,Kim Hyejin1,Jones Charles1,Calamari Brian1,Coleman Craig I.1,Heller Gary V.1

Affiliation:

1. From the Division of Cardiology (G.V.H.), Departments of Medicine (M.W.P., A.I., G.V.H.) and Nuclear Medicine (G.V.H.), University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT; Departments of Medicine and Nuclear Medicine, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, CT (B.L., A.P., H.K., C.J., B.C., C.I.C.); Henry Low Heart Center, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT (M.W.P.) and the Hartford Hospital Evidence Based Practice Center, Hartford, CT (C.I.C.).

Abstract

Background— Positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) offers technical benefits compared with single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) MPI, but there has been no systematic comparison of their diagnostic accuracy for coronary artery disease. We performed a bivariate meta-analysis of the published literature to compare the sensitivity and specificity of PET versus SPECT stress MPI for ≥50% stenosis of any epicardial coronary artery in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Methods and Results— We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception through January 2012 and the references of identified studies for prospective, English language studies that evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of PET and/or SPECT MPI with coronary angiography as the reference standard and reported sufficient data to calculate patient-level true and false positives and negatives. Two investigators independently extracted patient and study characteristics; a third investigator resolved any disagreements. We identified 117 studies, including 108 evaluating SPECT MPI, 4 evaluating PET MPI, and 5 evaluating both modalities. Bivariate meta-analysis demonstrated a significantly higher pooled mean sensitivity with PET (92.6% [95% Confidence Interval, 88.3% to 95.5%]) compared with SPECT (88.3% [95% confidence interval, 86.4% to 90.0%]) ( P =0.035). No significant difference in specificity was observed between PET (81.3% [95% confidence interval, 66.6% to 90.4%]) and SPECT (75.8% [95% confidence interval, 72.1% to 79.1%]) ( P =0.39). Few studies investigated coronary angiography with PET. Only 5 studies directly compared SPECT and PET. Conclusions— In a meta-analysis of 11,862 patients, PET MPI demonstrated a higher sensitivity for coronary artery disease than SPECT MPI. No difference in specificity was detected in the pooled analysis of PET and SPECT MPI.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cited by 197 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3