Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 368–374 | Cite as

The influence of coronary calcium score on the interpretation of myocardial perfusion imaging

  • Mohamed Mouden
  • Jan Paul Ottervanger
  • Jorik R. Timmer
  • Stoffer Reiffers
  • Ad H. J. Oostdijk
  • Siert Knollema
  • Pieter L. Jager
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores influence the pre-test likelihood of ischemia in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). We investigated the influence of CAC score knowledge on the visual interpretation of MPI in patients referred for the diagnostic work-up of suspected coronary artery disease.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed symptomatic patients who were referred for MPI. For the current analysis, we selected 151 patients who underwent SPECT MPI with simultaneous CAC scoring. MPI was visually interpreted in two separate sessions, first without and then with knowledge of the CAC score. MPI results were classified into four groups: normal, fixed defects, ischemia, and equivocal.

Results

Mean age of the patients was 64 ± 11 years, 56 % were male. Without knowledge of the CAC score MPI was evaluated as normal in 36 %, compared to 40 % with knowledge of the CAC score (P = 0.636). Overall, the addition of the CAC score changed the interpretation of MPI in 56 patients (37 %). Importantly, the frequency of equivocal MPI interpretations decreased from 21 % without knowledge of CAC score to 9 % with knowledge of CAC score (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

Knowledge of the CAC score has a major impact on the interpretation of MPI, increasing the interpretative certainty.

Keywords

Single photon emission-computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging coronary artery calcium scoring coronary artery disease 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

Financial support

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Gibbons RJ, Balady GJ, Bricker JT, et al. ACC/AHA 2002 Guideline update for exercise testing: summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines). Circulation. 2002;106:1883-92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gibbons RJ, Abrams J, Chatterjee K, et al. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with chronic stable angina-summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina). Circulation. 2003;107:149-58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shaw JL, Iskandrian AE. Prognostic value of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004;11:171-85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marcassa C, Bax JJ, Bengel F, et al. Clinical value, cost-effectiveness, and safety of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: a position statement. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:557-63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thompson RC, Heller GV, Johnson LL, et al. Value of attenuation correction on ECG-gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging related to body mass index. J Nucl Cardiol. 2005;12(2):195-202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pitman AG, Kalff V, Van Every B, Risa B, Barnden LR, Kelly MJ. Contributions of subdiaphragmatic activity, attenuation, and diaphragmatic motion to inferior wall artifact in attenuation-corrected Tc-99m myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2005;12(4):401-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corbett JR, Kritzman JN, Ficaro EP. Attenuation correction for single photon emission computed computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2004;6(1):32-40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simons M, Parker JA, Donohoe KJ, Udelson JE, Gervino EV. The impact of clinical data on interpretation of thallium scintigrams. J Nucl Cardiol. 1994;1(4):365-71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simons DB, Schwarz RS, Edwards WD, Sheedy PF, Breen JF, Rumberger JA. Noninvasive definition of anatomic coronary artery disease by ultrafast computed tomographic scanning: a quantitative pathologic comparison study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;20(5):1118-26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Budoff MJ, Shaw LJ, Liu ST, et al. Long-term prognosis associated with coronary calcification: observations from a registry of 25,253 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49(18):1860-70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shaw LJ, Raggi P, Schisterman E, Berman DS, Callister TQ. Prognostic value of cardiac risk factors and coronary artery calcium screening for all-cause mortality. Radiology. 2003;228(3):826-33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schepis S, Gaemperli O, Koepfli P, et al. Added value of coronary artery calcium score as an adjunct to gated SPECT for the evaluation of coronary artery disease in an intermediate-risk population. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(9):1424-30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schenker MP, Dorbala S, Hong EC, et al. Interrelation of coronary calcification, myocardial ischemia, and outcomes in patients with intermediate likelihood of coronary artery disease: a combined positron emission tomography/computed tomography study. Circulation. 2008;117(13):1693-700.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thompson RC, McGhie AI, Moser KW, et al. Clinical utility of coronary calcium scoring after nonischemic myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2005;12(4):392-400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bybee KA, Lee J, Markiewicz R, et al. Diagnostic and clinical benefit of combined coronary calcium and perfusion assessment in patients undergoing PET/CT myocardial stress perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17(2):188-96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Eng J Med. 1979;300:1350-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mouden M, Timmer JR, Ottervanger JP, et al. Impact of a new ultrafast CZT SPECT camera for myocardial perfusion imaging: fewer equivocal results and lower radiation dose. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1048-55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ, Zusmer NR, Viamonte M Jr, Detrano R. Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;15(15):827-32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Orakzai RH, Nasir K, Orakzai SH, et al. Effect of patient visualization of coronary calcium by electron beam computed tomography on changes in beneficial lifestyle behaviours. Am J Cardiol. 2008;101(7):999-1002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sarwar A, Shaw LJ, Shapiro MD, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of absence of coronary artery calcification. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2009;2(6):675-88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haberl R, Becker A, Leber A, et al. Correlation of coronary calcification and angiographically documented stenosis in patients with coronary artery disease: results of 1,764 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37(2):451-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Knez A, Becker A, Leber A, et al. Relation of coronary calcium scores by electron beam tomography to obstructive disease in 2,115 symptomatic patients. Am J Cardiol. 2004;93(9):1150-2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Esteves FP, Khan A, Correia LC, et al. Absent coronary artery calcium excludes inducible myocardial ischemia on computed tomography/positron emission tomography. Int J Cardiol. 2011;147(3):424-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mouden M, Timmer JR, Reiffers S, et al. Coronary artery calcium scoring to exclude flow-limiting coronary artery disease in symptomatic stable patients at low or intermediate risk patients. Radiology. 2013;269(1):77-83. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13122529.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ghadri JR, Pazhenkottil AP, Nkoulou RN, et al. Very high coronary calcium score unmasks obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with normal SPECT MPI. Heart. 2011;97(12):998-1003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eldevik OP, Dugstad G, Orrison WW, Haughton VM. The effect of clinical bias on the interpretation of myelography and spinal computed tomography. Radiology. 1982;145(1):85-9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baek SE, Kim MJ, Kim EK, Youk JH, Lee HJ, Son EJ. Effect of clinical information on diagnostic performance in breast sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28(10):1349-56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Holly TA, Abbott BG, Al-Mallah M, et al. Single photon-emission computed tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17(5):941-73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Husmann L, Herzog BA, Burger IA, et al. Usefulness of additional coronary calcium scoring in low-dose CT coronary angiography with prospective ECG-triggering impact on total effective radiation dose and diagnostic accuracy. Acad Radiol. 2010;17(2):201-6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schepis T, Gaemperli O, Koepfli P, et al. Use of coronary calcium score scans from stand-alone multislice computed tomography for attenuation correction of myocardial perfusion SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34(1):11-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Einstein AJ, Johnson LL, Bokhari S, et al. Agreement of visual estimation of coronary artery calcium from low-dose CT attenuation correction scans in hybrid PET/CT and SPECT/CT with standard Agatston score. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(23):1914-21.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Mouden
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jan Paul Ottervanger
    • 1
  • Jorik R. Timmer
    • 1
  • Stoffer Reiffers
    • 2
  • Ad H. J. Oostdijk
    • 2
  • Siert Knollema
    • 2
  • Pieter L. Jager
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of CardiologyIsala kliniekenZwolleThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineIsala kliniekenZwolleThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations