Traditionally, interpretation of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is based on visual assessment. Computer-based automated analysis might be a simple alternative obviating the need for extensive reading experience. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic performance of automated analysis with that of expert visual reading for the detection of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD).
206 Patients (64% men, age 58.2 ± 8.7 years) with suspected CAD were included prospectively. All patients underwent 99mTc-tetrofosmin single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and invasive coronary angiography with fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements. Non-corrected (NC) and attenuation-corrected (AC) SPECT images were analyzed both visually as well as automatically by commercially available SPECT software. Automated analysis comprised a segmental summed stress score (SSS), summed difference score (SDS), stress total perfusion deficit (S-TPD), and ischemic total perfusion deficit (I-TPD), representing the extent and severity of hypoperfused myocardium. Subsequently, software was optimized with an institutional normal database and thresholds. Diagnostic performances of automated and visual analysis were compared taking FFR as a reference.
Sensitivity did not differ significantly between visual reading and most automated scoring parameters, except for SDS, which was significantly higher than visual assessment (p < 0.001). Specificity, however, was significantly higher for visual reading than for any of the automated scores (p < 0.001 for all). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher for visual scoring (77.2%) than for all NC images scores (p < 0.05), but not compared with SSS AC and S-TPD AC (69.8% and 71.2%, p = 0.063 and p = 0.134). After optimization of the automated software, diagnostic accuracies were similar for visual (73.8%) and automated analysis. Among the automated parameters, S-TPD AC showed the highest accuracy (73.5%).
Automated analysis of myocardial perfusion SPECT can be as accurate as visual interpretation by an expert reader in detecting significant CAD defined by FFR.
ESM 1 (DOCX 582 kb)259_2018_3951_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Driessen RS, Leipsic J, Raju R, Naoum C, Knuuti J, Maki M, Underwood S, Min JK, Elmore K, Stuijfzand WJ, van Royen N, Tulevski II, Somsen GA, Huisman MC, van Lingen A, Heymans MW, van de Ven PM, van Kuijk CC, Lammertsma AA, van Rossum AC, Knaapen P: Comparison of coronary CT angiography, SPECT, PET, and Hybrid Imaging for Diagnosis of Ischemic Heart Disease Determined by Fractional Flow Reserve. JAMA Cardiol 2017.
Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, Jacobs AK, Kaul S, Laskey WK, Pennell DJ, Rumberger JA, Ryan T, Verani MS: Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the cardiac imaging Committee of the Council on clinical cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation 2002;105:539-542.
van Werkhoven JM, Schuijf JD, Gaemperli O, Jukema JW, Boersma E, Wijns W, et al. Kroft LJ, de RA, Pundziute G, Scholte a, van der Wall EE, Kaufmann PA, Bax JJ: prognostic value of multislice computed tomography and gated single-photon emission computed tomography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:623–32. CrossRefPubMed
Neglia D, Rovai D, Caselli C, Pietila M, Teresinska A, Aguade-Bruix S, Pizzi MN, Todiere G, Gimelli A, Schroeder S, Drosch T, Poddighe R, Casolo G, Anagnostopoulos C, Pugliese F, Rouzet F, Le GD, Cappelli F, Valente S, Gensini GF, Zawaideh C, Capitanio S, Sambuceti G, Marsico F, Perrone FP, Fernandez-Golfin C, Rincon LM, Graner FP, de Graaf MA, Fiechter M, Stehli J, Gaemperli O, Reyes E, Nkomo S, Maki M, Lorenzoni V, Turchetti G, Carpeggiani C, Marinelli M, Puzzuoli S, Mangione M, Marcheschi P, Mariani F, Giannessi D, Nekolla S, Lombardi M, Sicari R, Scholte AJ, Zamorano JL, Kaufmann PA, Underwood SR, Knuuti J: Detection of significant coronary artery disease by noninvasive anatomical and functional imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8.
Germano G, Kavanagh PB, Waechter P, Areeda J, Van KS, Sharir T, et al. A new algorithm for the quantitation of myocardial perfusion SPECT. I: technical principles and reproducibility. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:712–9. PubMed
Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, Mancini GB, Hayes SW, Hartigan PM, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation. 2008;117:1283–91. CrossRefPubMed
Hachamovitch R, Rozanski A, Shaw LJ, Stone GW, Thomson LE, Friedman JD, et al. Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:1012–24. CrossRefPubMed
Nakajima K, Okuda K, Kawano M, Matsuo S, Slomka P, Germano G, et al. The importance of population-specific normal database for quantification of myocardial ischemia: comparison between Japanese 360 and 180-degree databases and a US database. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:422–30. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Gregoire B, Pina-Jomir G, Bontemps L, Janier M, Scheiber C. The value of local normal limits in quantitative Thallium-201 CZT MPI SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016.
Genovesi D, Giorgetti A, Gimelli A, Kusch A, D’Aragona TI, Casagranda M, et al. Impact of attenuation correction and gated acquisition in SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: results of the multicentre SPAG (SPECT attenuation correction vs gated) study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1890–8. CrossRefPubMed
- Automated SPECT analysis compared with expert visual scoring for the detection of FFR-defined coronary artery disease
R. S. Driessen
P. G. Raijmakers
W. J. Stuijfzand
S. P. Schumacher
J. K. Min
A. A. Lammertsma
A. C. van Rossum
N. van Royen
S. R. Underwood
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-7089