Advertisement

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 53–63 | Cite as

Gender differences in the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: A bivariate meta-analysis

  • Aline Iskandar
  • Brendan Limone
  • Matthew W. Parker
  • Andrew Perugini
  • Hyejin Kim
  • Charles Jones
  • Brian Calamari
  • Craig I. Coleman
  • Gary V. Heller
Original Article

Abstract

Background

It remains controversial whether the diagnostic accuracy of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI) is different in men as compared to women. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate gender differences of SPECT MPI for the diagnosis of CAD (≥50% stenosis).

Method

Two investigators independently performed a systematic review of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception through January 2012 for English-language studies determining the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT MPI. We included prospective studies that compared SPECT MPI with conventional coronary angiography which provided sufficient data to calculate gender-specific true and false positives and negatives. Data from studies evaluating <20 patients of one gender were excluded. Bivariate meta-analysis was used to create summary receiver operating curves.

Results

Twenty-six studies met inclusion criteria, representing 1,148 women and 1,142 men. Bivariate meta-analysis yielded a mean sensitivity and specificity of 84.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 78.7%-88.6%) and 78.7% (CI 70.0%-85.3%) for SPECT MPI in women and 89.1% (CI 84.0%-92.7%) and 71.2% (CI 60.8%-79.8%) for SPECT MPI in men. There was no significant difference in the sensitivity (P = .15) or specificity (P = .23) between male and female subjects.

Conclusion

In a bivariate meta-analysis of the available literature, the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT MPI is similar for both men and women.

Keywords

Myocardial perfusion imaging: SPECT diagnostic and prognostic application SPECT 

Notes

Disclosures

Dr Heller serves on the Scientific Advisory Board of Lantheus Medical Imaging. The remaining authors have no disclosures relevant to this project.

Supplementary material

12350_2012_9646_MOESM1_ESM.docx (52 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 52 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH, Bateman TM, Messer JV, Berman DS, et al. ACC/AHA/ASNC guidelines for the clinical use of cardiac radionuclide imaging—executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASNC Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging). Circulation 2003;108:1404-18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hansen CL, Crabbe D, Rubin S. Lower diagnostic accuracy of thallium-201 SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging in women: An effect of smaller chamber size. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28:1214-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shaw LJ, Bairey Merz CN, Pepine CJ, Reis SE, Bittner V, Kelsey SF, et al. Insights from the NHLBI-sponsored Women’s Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) Study: Part I: Gender differences in traditional and novel risk factors, symptom evaluation, and gender-optimized diagnostic strategies. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:S4-20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Selvanayagam J. Women with chest pain: Expanding the diagnostic armamentarium. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2008;1:446-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kohli P, Gulati M. Exercise stress testing in women: Going back to the basics. Circulation 2010;122:2570-80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kwok Y, Kim C, Grady D, Segal M, Redberg R. Meta-analysis of exercise testing to detect coronary artery disease in women. Am J Cardiol 1999;83:660-6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kastner M, Wilczynski NL, McKibbon AK, Garg AX, Haynes RB. Diagnostic test systematic reviews: Bibliographic search filters (“Clinical Queries”) for diagnostic accuracy studies perform well. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:974-81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: A tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks J, Harbord R, Takwoingi Y. Analysing and presenting results. In: Deeks J, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2010.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amanullah AM, Kiat H, Friedman JD, Berman DS. Adenosine technetium-99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion SPECT in women: Diagnostic efficacy in detection of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27:803-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bokhari S, Shahzad A, Bergmann SR. Superiority of exercise myocardial perfusion imaging compared with the exercise ECG in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Coron Artery Dis 2008;19:399-404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elhendy A, Schinkel AF, Bax JJ, van Domburg RT, Valkema R, Biagini E, et al. Accuracy of stress Tc-99m tetrofosmin myocardial perfusion tomography for the diagnosis and localization of coronary artery disease in women. J Nucl Cardiol 2006;13:629-34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elhendy A, van Domburg RT, Bax JJ, Nierop PR, Geleijnse ML, Ibrahim MM, et al. Noninvasive diagnosis of coronary artery stenosis in women with limited exercise capacity: Comparison of dobutamine stress echocardiography and 99mTc sestamibi single-photon emission CT. Chest 1998;114:1097-104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ho YL, Wu CC, Huang PJ, Lin LC, Chieng PU, Chen WJ, et al. Assessment of coronary artery disease in women by dobutamine stress echocardiography: Comparison with stress thallium-201 single-photon emission computed tomography and exercise electrocardiography. Am Heart J 1998;135:655-62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lu C, Lu F, Fragasso G, Dabrowski P, Di Bello V, Chierchia SL, et al. Comparison of exercise electrocardiography, technetium-99m sestamibi single photon emission computed tomography, and dobutamine and dipyridamole echocardiography for detection of coronary artery disease in hypertensive women. Am J Cardiol 2010;105:1254-60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mieres JH, Makaryus AN, Cacciabaudo JM, Donaldson D, Green SJ, Heller GV, et al. Value of electrocardiographically gated single-photon emission computed tomographic myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in a cohort of symptomatic postmenopausal women. Am J Cardiol 2007;99:1096-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mohiuddin SM, Ravage CK, Esterbrooks DJ, Lucas BD Jr, Hilleman DE. The comparative safety and diagnostic accuracy of adenosine myocardial perfusion imaging in women versus men. Pharmacotherapy 1996;16:646-51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rollan MJ, San Roman JA, Vilacosta I, Ortega JR, Bratos JL. Dobutamine stress echocardiography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in women with chest pain: Comparison with different noninvasive tests. Clin Cardiol 2002;25:559-64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Santana-Boado C, Candell-Riera J, Castell-Conesa J, Aguade-Bruix S, Garcia-Burillo A, Canela T, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of technetium-99m-MIBI myocardial SPECT in women and men. J Nucl Med 1998;39:751-5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Slavich GA, Guerra UP, Morocutti G, Fioretti PM, Fresco C, Orlandi C, et al. Feasibility of simultaneous Tc99m sestamibi and 2D-echo cardiac imaging during dobutamine pharmacologic stress. Preliminary results in a female population. Int J Card Imaging 1996;12:113-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smanio PE, Carvalho AC, Tebexreni AS, Thom A, Rodrigues F, Meneghelo R, et al. Coronary artery disease in asymptomatic type-2 diabetic women. A comparative study between exercise test, cardiopulmonary exercise test, and dipyridamole myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in the identification of ischemia. Arq Bras Cardiol 2007;89:263-9, 90-7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Taillefer R, DePuey EG, Udelson JE, Beller GA, Benjamin C, Gagnon A. Comparison between the end-diastolic images and the summed images of gated 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT perfusion study in detection of coronary artery disease in women. J Nucl Cardiol 1999;6:169-76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taillefer R, DePuey EG, Udelson JE, Beller GA, Latour Y, Reeves F. Comparative diagnostic accuracy of Tl-201 and Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT imaging (perfusion and ECG-gated SPECT) in detecting coronary artery disease in women. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:69-77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Takeuchi M, Sonoda S, Miura Y, Kuroiwa A. Comparative diagnostic value of dobutamine stress echocardiography and stress thallium-201 single-photon-emission computed tomography for detecting coronary artery disease in women. Coron Artery Dis 1996;7:831-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Train KF, Garcia EV, Maddahi J, Areeda J, Cooke CD, Kiat H, et al. Multicenter trial validation for quantitative analysis of same-day rest-stress technetium-99m-sestamibi myocardial tomograms. J Nucl Med 1994;35:609-18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yeih DF, Huang PJ, Ho YL. Enhanced diagnosis of coronary artery disease in women by dobutamine thallium-201 ST-segment/heart rate slope and thallium-201 myocardial SPECT. J Formos Med Assoc 2007;106:832-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Acampa W, Cuocolo A, Sullo P, Varrone A, Nicolai E, Pace L, et al. Direct comparison of technetium 99m-sestamibi and technetium 99m-tetrofosmin cardiac single photon emission computed tomography in patients with coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol 1998;5:265-74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cuocolo A, Sullo P, Pace L, Nappi A, Gisonni P, Nicolai E, et al. Adenosine coronary vasodilation in coronary artery disease: Technetium-99m tetrofosmin myocardial tomography versus echocardiography. J Nucl Med 1997;38:1089-94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Karlsson JE, Bjorkholm A, Nylander E, Ohlsson J, Wallentin L. Additional value of thallium-201 SPECT to a conventional exercise test for the identification of severe coronary lesions after an episode of unstable coronary artery disease. Int J Card Imaging 1995;11:127-37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kiat H, Van Train KF, Friedman JD, Germano G, Silagan G, Wang FP, et al. Quantitative stress-redistribution thallium-201 SPECT using prone imaging: Methodologic development and validation. J Nucl Med 1992;33:1509-15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kiat H, Van Train KF, Maddahi J, Corbett JR, Nichols K, McGhie AI, et al. Development and prospective application of quantitative 2-day stress-rest Tc-99m methoxy isobutyl isonitrile SPECT for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Am Heart J 1990;120:1255-66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Maddahi J, Van Train K, Prigent F, Garcia EV, Friedman J, Ostrzega E, et al. Quantitative single photon emission computed thallium-201 tomography for detection and localization of coronary artery disease: Optimization and prospective validation of a new technique. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;14:1689-99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosenkranz S, Voth E, Larosee K, Baer FM, Kettering K, Smolarz K, et al. Identification of hemodynamically significant restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction by transesophageal dobutamine stress echocardiography and comparison with myocardial single photon emission computed tomography. J Interv Cardiol 2001;14:271-82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sciammarella MG, Fragasso G, Gerundini P, Maffioli L, Cappelletti A, Margonato A, et al. 99Tcm-MIBI single photon emission tomography (SPET) for detecting myocardial ischaemia and necrosis in patients with significant coronary artery disease. Nucl Med Commun 1992;13:871-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zafar Ul I, Waris J, Kango ZA. Use of exercise tolerance test and thallium stress test in the diagnosis of ischemic heart disease in soldiers. J Coll Phys Surg Pak 2009;19:406-9.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mieres JH, Shaw LJ, Arai A, Budoff MJ, Flamm SD, Hundley WG, et al. Role of noninvasive testing in the clinical evaluation of women with suspected coronary artery disease: Consensus statement from the Cardiac Imaging Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, American Heart Association. Circulation 2005;111:682-96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mieres JH, Shaw LJ, Hendel RC, Miller DD, Bonow RO, Berman DS, et al. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology consensus statement: Task force on women and coronary artery disease—the role of myocardial perfusion imaging in the clinical evaluation of coronary artery disease in women [correction]. J Nucl Cardiol 2003;10:95-101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shaw LJ, Olson MB, Kip K, Kelsey SF, Johnson BD, Mark DB, et al. The value of estimated functional capacity in estimating outcome: Results from the NHBLI-Sponsored Women’s Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:S36-43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Parker MW, Iskandar A, Limone B, Perugini A, Kim H, Jones C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of cardiac positron emission tomography versus single photon emission computed tomography for coronary artery disease: A bivariate meta-analysis. Circul Cardiovasc Imaging 2012 (Provisionally accepted August 9, 2012).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Detrano R, Janosi A, Lyons KP, Marcondes G, Abbassi N, Froelicher VF. Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test: The exercise thallium scintigram. Am J Med 1988;84:699-710.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grady D, Chaput L, Kristof M. Diagnosis and treatment of coronary heart disease in women: Systematic reviews of evidence on selected topics. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) 2003;81:1-4.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529-36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aline Iskandar
    • 1
    • 3
  • Brendan Limone
    • 2
  • Matthew W. Parker
    • 1
    • 3
  • Andrew Perugini
    • 2
  • Hyejin Kim
    • 2
  • Charles Jones
    • 2
  • Brian Calamari
    • 2
  • Craig I. Coleman
    • 2
    • 4
  • Gary V. Heller
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of Connecticut School of MedicineFarmingtonUSA
  2. 2.University of Connecticut School of PharmacyStorrsUSA
  3. 3.Division of CardiologyHenry Low Heart Center, Hartford HospitalHartfordUSA
  4. 4.Hartford Hospital Evidence Based Practice CenterHartfordUSA

Personalised recommendations