Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Strategies for defining an optimal risk-benefit ratio for stress myocardial perfusion SPECT

  • ASNC Information Statement
  • Published:
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology Aims and scope

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  1. Shaw LJ, Marwick TH, Zoghbi WA, et al. Why all the focus on cardiac imaging? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3:789-94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shaw LJ, Achenbach S, Chandrashekhar Y, et al. Imaging modalities and radiation: Benefit has its risks. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3:550-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gerber TC, Gibbons RJ. Weighing the risks and benefits of cardiac imaging with ionizing radiation. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3:528-35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Laskey WK, Feinendegen LE, Neumann RD, Dilsizian V. Low-level ionizing radiation from noninvasive cardiac imaging: Can we extrapolate estimated risks from epidemiologic data to the clinical setting? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3:517-24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen J, Einstein AJ, Fazel R, et al. Cumulative exposure to ionizing radiation from diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac imaging procedures: A population-based analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:712-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, et al. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 2009;361:849-57.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Einstein AJ. Radiation risk from coronary artery disease imaging: How do different diagnostic tests compare? Heart 2008;94:1519-21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. J Am Med Assoc 2007;298:317-23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 2007;116:1290-305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cerqueira MD, Allman KC, Ficaro EP, et al. Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:709-18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim KP, Einstein AJ, Berrington de Gonzalez A. Coronary artery calcification screening: Estimated radiation dose and cancer risk. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1188-94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Olson MB, Shaw LJ, Kaizar EE, et al. Obesity distribution and reproductive hormone levels in women: A report from the NHLBI-sponsored WISE study. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2006;15:836-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2071-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Einstein AJ, Weiner SD, Bernheim A, et al. Multiple testing, cumulative radiation dose, and clinical indications in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging. J Am Med Assoc 2010;304:2137-44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Shaw LJ, Taylor A, Raggi P, Berman DS. Role of noninvasive imaging in asymptomatic high-risk patients. J Nucl Cardiol 2006;13:156-62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII—Phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003;100:13761-6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn EJ, Bouffler SD, Berrington de Gonzalez A. Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: Why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology 2009;251:6-12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shaw LJ, Heller GV, Casperson P, et al. Gated myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography in the clinical outcomes utilizing revascularization and aggressive drug evaluation (COURAGE) trial, Veterans Administration cstudy no. 424. J Nucl Cardiol 2006;13:685-98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Valentin J. Low-dose extrapolation of radiation-related cancer risk. Ann ICRP 2005;35:1-140.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Kim K-P, Smith-Bindman R, McAreavey D. Myocardial perfusion scans: Projected population cancer risks from current levels of use in the United States. Circulation 2010;122:2403-10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. http://www.cancer.org/Research/CancerFactsFigures/CancerFactsFigures/cancer-facts-and-figures-2010. Accessed January 11, 2011.

  23. Senthamizhchelvan S, Bravo PE, Esaias C, et al. Human biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 82Rb. J Nucl Med 2010;51:1592-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Einstein AJ, Elliston CD, Arai AE, et al. Radiation dose from single-heartbeat coronary CT angiography performed with a 320-detector row volume scanner. Radiology 2010;254:698-706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Einstein AJ, Wolff SD, Manheimer ED, et al. Comparison of image quality and radiation dose of coronary computed tomographic angiography between conventional helical scanning and a strategy incorporating sequential scanning. Am J Cardiol 2009;104:1343-50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Berman DS, Kang X, Tamarappoo B, et al. Stress thallium-201/rest technetium-99m sequential dual isotope high-speed myocardial perfusion imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2009;2:273-82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Einstein AJ, Sanz J, Dellegrottaglie S, et al. Radiation dose and cancer risk estimates in 16-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. J Nucl Cardiol 2008;15:232-40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Duvall WL, Croft LB, Godiwala T, Ginsberg E, George T, Henzlova MJ. Reduced isotope dose with rapid SPECT MPI imaging: Initial experience with a CZT SPECT camera. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:1009-14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF, et al. ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 appropriate use criteria for cardiac radionuclide imaging. Circulation 2009;119:e561-87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Berman DS, Hachamovitch R, Kiat H, et al. Incremental value of prognostic testing in patients with known or suspected ischemic heart disease: A basis for optimal utilization of exercise technetium-99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;26:639-47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ward RP, Al-Mallah MH, Grossman GB, et al. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology review of the ACCF/ASNC appropriateness criteria for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI). J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14:e26-38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Iskandrian AS, Chae SC, Heo J, Stanberry CD, Wasserleben V, Cave V. Independent and incremental prognostic value of exercise single-photon emission computed tomographic (SPECT) thallium imaging in coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;22:665-70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Blumenthal RS, et al. Clinical imaging for prevention: Directed strategies for improved detection of presymptomatic patients with undetected atherosclerosis—Part I: Clinical imaging for prevention. J Nucl Cardiol 2008;15:e6-19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Beach MC, Roter DL, Wang NY, Duggan PS, Cooper LA. Are physicians’ attitudes of respect accurately perceived by patients and associated with more positive communication behaviors? Patient Educ Couns 2006;62:347-54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sandman PM. Explaining risk to non-experts: A communications challenge. Emerg Prep Dig 1987;14:25-92.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Higson D. Beir VII-2. J Radiol Prot 2005;25:324-5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. American College of Radiology, Radiological Society of North America. Radiation Exposure in X-ray and CT Examinations. http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty_xray#part2. Updated November 15, 2010. Accessed November 17, 2010.

  38. Hendel RC, Cerqueira M, Douglas PS, et al. A multicenter assessment of the use of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging with appropriateness criteria. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:156-62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Brewer NT, Tzeng JP, Lillie SE, Edwards AS, Peppercorn JM, Rimer BK. Health literacy and cancer risk perception: Implications for genomic risk communication. Med Decis Making 2009;29:157-66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sharp LK, Zurawski JM, Roland PY, O’Toole C, Hines J. Health literacy, cervical cancer risk factors, and distress in low-income African-American women seeking colposcopy. Ethn Dis 2002;12:541-6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. National Network of Libraries of Medicine. Health Literacy. http://nnlm.gov/outreach/consumer/hlthlit.html. Updated September 14, 2010. Accessed November 15, 2010.

  42. Roter DL, Hall JA, Aoki Y. Physician gender effects in medical communication: A meta-analytic review. J Am Med Assoc 2002;288:756-64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Helitzer DL, Lanoue M, Wilson B, de Hernandez BU, Warner T, Roter D. A randomized controlled trial of communication training with primary care providers to improve patient-centeredness and health risk communication. Patient Educ Couns 2010;82:21-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Roter DL, Hall JA. Communication and adherence: Moving from prediction to understanding. Med Care 2009;47:823-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ghods BK, Roter DL, Ford DE, Larson S, Arbelaez JJ, Cooper LA. Patient-physician communication in the primary care visits of African Americans and whites with depression. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:600-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Young LH, Wackers FJ, Chyun DA, et al. Cardiac outcomes after screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: The DIAD study: A randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc 2009;301:1547-55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Jacob K, Vivian G, Steel JR. X-ray dose training: Are we exposed to enough? Clin Radiol 2004;59:928-34. discussion 6-7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Quinn AD, Taylor CG, Sabharwal T, Sikdar T. Radiation protection awareness in non-radiologists. Br J Radiol 1997;70:102-6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Shiralkar S, Rennie A, Snow M, Galland RB, Lewis MH, Gower-Thomas K. Doctors’ knowledge of radiation exposure: Questionnaire study. BMJ 2003;327:371-2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Andrew Einstein, MD, PhD receives research support from Spectrum Dynamics. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose except as noted above.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Reza Fazel MD, MSc & Leslee J. Shaw PhD

  2. University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Vasken Dilsizian MD

  3. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Andrew J. Einstein MD, PhD

  4. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Edward P. Ficaro PhD

  5. Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Milena Henzlova MD

Authors
  1. Reza Fazel MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vasken Dilsizian MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew J. Einstein MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Edward P. Ficaro PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Milena Henzlova MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Leslee J. Shaw PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Disclaimer This Information Statement has been prepared from publicly available information and is intended for the personal use of ASNC members. Its purpose is to provide objective information and analysis on a timely basis; it is not intended to be prescriptive or definitive as to appropriate medical practice or minimal standards of care for patients. In addition, the standards discussed may not be appropriate for all practice settings or for all patients. ASNC expressly disclaims any liability for reliance upon this Information Statement.

Unless reaffirmed, retired, or amended by express action of the Board of Directors of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, this Information Statement shall expire as of March 2016.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fazel, R., Dilsizian, V., Einstein, A.J. et al. Strategies for defining an optimal risk-benefit ratio for stress myocardial perfusion SPECT. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 18, 385–392 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-011-9353-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-011-9353-4

Search

Navigation