Advertisement

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 1280–1287 | Cite as

Prognostic value of the cadmium-zinc-telluride camera: A comparison with a conventional (Anger) camera

  • Jorge Daniel OldanEmail author
  • Linda K. Shaw
  • Paul Hofmann
  • Matthew Phelan
  • Jeffrey Nelson
  • Robert Pagnanelli
  • Salvador Borges-Neto
Original Article

Abstract

Background

New multipinhole cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) cameras allow for faster imaging and lower radiation doses for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) studies, but assessment of prognostic ability is necessary.

Methods and Results

We collected data from all myocardial SPECT perfusion studies performed over 15 months at our institution, using either a CZT or conventional Anger camera. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the relationship between camera type, imaging results, and either death or myocardial infarction (MI). Clinical variables including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and historical risk factors were used for population description and model adjustments. We had 2,088 patients with a total of 69 deaths and 65 MIs (122 events altogether). A 3% increase in DDB (difference defect burden) represented a 12% increase in the risk of death or MI, whereas a 3% increase in rest defect burden or stress defect burden represented an 8% increase; these risks were the same for both cameras (P > .24, interaction tests).

Conclusions

The CZT camera has similar prognostic values for death and MI to conventional Anger cameras. This suggests that it may successfully be used to decrease patient dose.

Keywords

Evidence-based medicine SPECT solid-state camera CZT outcomes 

Abbreviations

MI

Myocardial infarction

CAD

Coronary artery disease

SSS

Summed stress score

SDS

Summed difference score

SRS

Summed rest score

SDB

Stress defect burden

RDB

Rest defect burden

DDB

Difference defect burden

Notes

Disclosures

Jorge Oldan, Paul Hofmann, Linda K. Shaw, Matthew Phelan, and Salvador Borges-Neto have no conflicts of interest. Jorge Oldan and Salvador Borges-Neto are affiliated with Duke University Medical Center. Paul Hofmann, Linda K. Shaw, and Matthew Phelan are associated with the Duke Clinical Research Institute.

References

  1. 1.
    Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1979;300:1350-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mark DB, Shaw LK, Harrell FE Jr, Hlatky MA, Lee KL, Bengtson JR, et al. Prognostic value of a treadmill exercise score in outpatients with suspected coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1991;325:849-53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Kiat H, Cohen I, Cabico JA, Friedman J, et al. Exercise myocardial perfusion SPECT in patients without known coronary artery disease: Incremental prognostic value and impact on subsequent patient management. Circulation 1996;93:905-14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Shaw LJ, Kiat H, Cohen I, Cabico JA, et al. Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: Differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. Circulation 1998;97:535-43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pryor DB, Shaw L, McCants CB, Lee KL, Mark DB, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Value of the history and physical in identifying patients at increased risk for coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:81-90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ottenhof MJ, Wai MC, Boiten HJ, Korbee RS, Valkema R, van Domburg RT, et al. 12-Year outcome after normal myocardial perfusion SPECT in patients with known coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol 2013;20:748-54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schepis T, Benz K, Haldemann A, Kaufmann PA, Schmidhausen C, Frielingsdorf J. Prognostic value of stress-gated 99 m-technetium SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: Risk stratification of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and prior coronary revascularization. J Nucl Cardiol 2013;20:755-62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, Berra K, Blankenship JC, Dallas AP, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACOP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Circulation 2012;126:3097-137.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J, Butler PF, Callahan MJ, Boley BD, et al. The ‘Image Gently’ campaign: Increasing CT radiation dose awareness through a national education and awareness program. Pediatr Radiol 2008;38:265-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brink JA, Amis ES Jr. Image Wisely: A campaign to increase awareness about adult radiation protection. Radiology 2010;257:601-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jafari ME, Daus AM. Applying Image Gently and Image Wisely in nuclear medicine. Health Phys 2013;104:S31-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    GE Healthcare. Alcyone technology: white paper 2009. Document ID NU-0173-02.09-EN-US. New York: General Electric Company.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oddstig J, Hedeer F, Jogi J, Carlsson M, Hindorf C, Engblom H. Reduced administered activity, reduced acquisition time, and preserved image quality for the new CZT camera. J Nucl Cardiol 2013;20:38-44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duvall WL, Sweeny JM, Croft LB, Ginsberg E, Guma KA, Henzlova MJ. Reduced stress dose with rapid acquisition CZT SPECT MPI in a non-obese clinical population: Comparison to coronary angiography. J Nucl Cardiol 2012;19:19-27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mouden M, Timmer JR, Ottervanger JP, Reiffers S, Oostdijk AH, Knollema S, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Verger A, Djaballah W, Fourquet N, Rouzet F, Koehl G, Imbert L, et al. Comparison between stress myocardial perfusion SPECT recorded with cadmium-zinc-telluride and Anger cameras in various study protocols. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40:331-40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tanaka H, Chikamori T, Hida S, Uchida K, Igarashi Y, Yokoyama T, et al. Comparison of myocardial perfusion imaging between the new high-speed gamma camera and the standard anger camera. Circ J 2013;77:1009-17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duvall WL, Slomka PJ, Gerlach JR, Sweeny JM, Baber U, Croft LB, et al. High-efficiency SPECT MPI: Comparison of automated quantification, visual interpretation, and coronary angiography. J Nucl Cardiol 2013;20:763-73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nakazato R, Berman DS, Gransar H, Hyun M, Miranda-Peats R, Kite FC, et al. Prognostic value of quantitative high-speed myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2012;19:1113-23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salerno M, Elliot L, Shaw LK, Piccini JP, Pagnanelli R, Borges-Neto S. Prognostic validation of an algorithm to convert myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging data from a 12-segment model to a 17-segment model. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:605-13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salustri A, Pozzoli MMA, Hermans W, Ilmer B, Cornel JH, Reijs AEM, et al. Relationship between exercise echocardiography and perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography in patients with single-vessel coronary artery disease. Am Heart J 1992;124:75-83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harris PJ, Harrel FE Jr, Lee KL, Behar VS, Rosati RA. Survival in medically treated patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 1979;60:1259-69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosati RA, McNeer JF, Starmer CF, Mittler BS, Morris JJ Jr, Wallace AG. A new information system for medical practice. Arch Intern Med 1975;135:1017-24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stone CJ, Koo CY. Additive splines in statistics. Proc Stat Comp Sect Am Statist Assoc 1985;27:45-8.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Visscher TL, Seidell JC, Molarius A, van der Kuip D, Hofman A, Witteman JC. A comparison of body mass index, waist-hip ratio and waist circumference as predictors of all-cause mortality among the elderly: The Rotterdam study. Int J Obesity Relat Metab Disord 2001;25:1730-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Allison DB, Zannolli R, Faith MS, Heo M, Pietrobelli A, Vanltallie TB, et al. Weight loss increases and fat loss decreases all-cause mortality rate: Results from two independent cohort studies. Int J Obesity Relat Metab Disord 1999;23:603-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge Daniel Oldan
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Linda K. Shaw
    • 2
  • Paul Hofmann
    • 2
  • Matthew Phelan
    • 2
  • Jeffrey Nelson
    • 3
  • Robert Pagnanelli
    • 1
  • Salvador Borges-Neto
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of RadiologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Duke Clinical Research InstituteDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Clinical Imaging Physics Group, Department of RadiologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  4. 4.ClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations