Prognosis of stress-only SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging with prone imaging

Stress-First Myocardial Perfusion Imaging

Stress-first approaches to myocardial perfusion imaging provide diagnostically and prognostically accurate perfusion data equivalent to a full rest-stress study while saving time in the imaging laboratory and reducing the radiation exposure to patients and laboratory staff. Unfortunately, implementing a stress-first approach in a nuclear cardiology laboratory involves significant challenges such as the need for attenuation correction, triage of patients to an appropriate protocol, real-time review of stress images, and consideration of differential reimbursement. Despite it being best practice for both the patient and the laboratory, these impediments have kept the proportions of studies performed stress-first relatively unchanged in North America and world-wide in the last 10 years.

Prediction of multivessel coronary artery disease and candidates for stress-only imaging using multivariable models with myocardial perfusion imaging

Purpose

Selecting patients with coronary multivessel disease (MVD) or no stenosis using myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is challenging. We aimed to create a model to predict MVD using a combination of quantitative MPI values and background factors of patients. We also assessed whether patients in the same database could be selected who do not require rest studies (stress-only imaging).

Methods

We analyzed data from 1001 patients who had been assessed by stress MPI at 12 centers and 463 patients who had not undergone revascularization in Japan. Quantitative values based on MPI were obtained using cardioREPO software, which included myocardial perfusion defect scores, left ventricular ejection fractions and volumes. Factors in MPI and clinical backgrounds that could predict MVD were investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses. We also investigated whether stress data alone could predict patients without coronary stenosis to identify candidates for stress-only imaging.

Results

We selected summed stress score (SSS), rest end-diastolic volume, and hypertension to create a predictive model for MVD. A logistic regression model was created with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.825. To more specifically predict coronary three-vessel disease, the AUC was 0.847 when SSS, diabetes, and hypertension were selected. The mean probabilities of abnormality based on the MVD prediction model were 12%, 24%, 40%, and 51% for no-, one-, two-, and three-vessel disease, respectively (p < 0.0001). For the model to select patients with stress-only imaging, the AUC was 0.78 when the model was created using SSS, stress end-systolic volume and the number of risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and a history of smoking).

Conclusion

A model analysis combining myocardial SPECT and clinical data can predict MVD, and can select patients for stress-only tests. Our models should prove useful for clinical applications.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Prognostically safe stress-only single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging guided by machine learning: report from REFINE SPECT

AIMS

Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) stress-only protocols reduce radiation exposure and cost but require clinicians to make immediate decisions regarding rest scan cancellation. We developed a machine learning (ML) approach for automatic rest scan cancellation and evaluated its prognostic safety.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In total, 20 414 patients from a solid-state SPECT MPI international multicentre registry with clinical data and follow-up for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were used to train ML for MACE prediction as a continuous probability (ML score), using 10-fold repeated hold-out testing to separate test from training data. Three ML score thresholds (ML1, ML2, and ML3) were derived by matching the cancellation rates achieved by physician interpretation and two clinical selection rules. Annual MACE rates were compared in patients selected for rest scan cancellation between approaches. Patients selected for rest scan cancellation with ML had lower annualized MACE rates than those selected by physician interpretation or clinical selection rules (ML1 vs. physician interpretation: 1.4 ± 0.1% vs. 2.1 ± 0.1%; ML2 vs. clinical selection: 1.5 ± 0.1% vs. 2.0 ± 0.1%; ML3 vs. stringent clinical selection: 0.6 ± 0.1% vs. 1.7 ± 0.1%, all P < 0.0001) at matched cancellation rates (60 ± 0.7, 64 ± 0.7, and 30 ± 0.6%). Annualized all-cause mortality rates in populations recommended for rest cancellation by physician interpretation, clinical selection approaches were higher (1.3%, 1.2%, and 1.0%, respectively) compared with corresponding ML thresholds (0.6%, 0.6%, and 0.2%).

CONCLUSION

ML, using clinical and stress imaging data, can be used to automatically recommend cancellation of rest SPECT MPI scans, while ensuring higher prognostic safety than current clinical approaches.

Contemporary Cardiac SPECT Imaging-Innovations and Best Practices: An Information Statement from the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology

This information statement from the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology highlights advances in cardiac SPECT imaging and supports the incorporation of new technology and techniques in laboratories performing nuclear cardiology procedures. The document focuses on the application of the latest imaging protocols and the utilization of newer hardware and software options to perform high quality, state-of-the-art SPECT nuclear cardiology procedures. Recommendations for best practices of cardiac SPECT imaging are discussed, highlighting what imaging laboratories should be doing as the standard of care in 2018 to achieve optimal results (based on the ASNC 2018 SPECT guideline [Dorbala et al., J Nucl Cardiol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-1283-y ]).

Current Practices in Myocardial Perfusion Scintigraphy in Brazil and Adherence to the IAEA Recommendations: Results of a Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Data on the current situation of nuclear medicine practices in cardiology in Brazil are scarce. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recommended eight "good practices" to minimize patients' ionizing radiation exposure during myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the adoption of the eight good practices in MPS in Brazil.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study with data obtained by use of a questionnaire. All hypothesis tests performed considered a significance level of 5%.

RESULTS

We observed that 100% of the nuclear medicine services (NMS) assessed do not use thallium-201 as the preferred protocol. Regarding the use of technetium-99m, 57% of the NMS administer activities above the threshold recommended by the IAEA (36 mCi) or achieve an effective dose greater than 15 millisievert (mSv). The abbreviated stress-only myocardial perfusion imaging is not employed by 94% of the NMS; thus, only 19% count on strategies to reduce the radioactive doses. Approximately 52% of the NMS reported always performing dose adjustment for patient's weight, while 35% administer poorly calculated doses in the one-day protocol.

CONCLUSION

A considerable number of NMS in Brazil have not adopted at least six practices recommended by the IAEA. Despite the difficulties found in nuclear practice in some Brazilian regions, almost all obstacles observed can be overcome with no cost increase, emphasizing the importance of developing strategies for adopting "good practices" when performing MPS.