Cardiovascular Nuclear Imaging: Balancing Proven Clinical Value and Potential Radiation Risk

Stress-delta B-type Natriuretic Peptide Levels as a Test for Inducible Myocardial Ischemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Cardiac ischemia induces myocardial dysfunction and ventricular wall stretch, which causes the release of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) into the bloodstream. However, it is unclear whether inducible ischemia produces a significant change in BNP levels ("stress delta-BNP"). The objective of this study was to determine the utility of stress-delta BNP levels and its precursor NT-proBNP for detecting inducible myocardial ischemia during cardiac stress testing. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Ovid. Studies examining the changes in levels of BNP and its precursor, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), after an exercise cardiac stress test were included. Two reviewers independently analyzed titles and abstracts. Abstracts that did not provide enough information regarding eligibility criteria were kept for full-text evaluation. The same two reviewers also performed data extraction for analyses. Any disagreement was resolved by a consensus and, if it persisted, by a third reviewer adjudication. We report the median and mean values in studies in the order of sample size. Results A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nine studies reported results in medians and six studies reported results in means. Of the nine studies, five assessed BNP alone, three assessed NT-proBNP, and one assessed both. Due to the non-normal distribution of results in these studies, they could not be meta-analyzed. Of the six studies that reported results in means, three assessed BNP and three assessed NT-proBNP. The standardized difference between normal and ischemic patients' stress-delta BNP values was -0.39 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61; -0.17) in a fixed-effects model and -0.73 (95% CI: -1.72; 0.28) in the random-effects model with high heterogeneity (I^2 = 94%, Q test P = 0.001). For NT-proBNP, the meta-analysis model showed no significant difference between the stress-delta test for ischemic and normal patients (standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.02, 95% CI: -0.31; 0.28). Patients without inducible ischemia appeared to have a lower baseline BNP and NT-proBNP compared to patients with inducible ischemia by stress testing. Although some studies report higher stress-delta BNP in the ischemic group, this pattern was not seen consistently across studies. There was high heterogeneity across studies which was not robust to sensitivity analysis. A random-effects model failed to find statistically significant differences in stress-delta BNP or NT-proBNP. Conclusions We failed to find a relationship between stress-delta BNP or NT-proBNP and the presence or absence of ischemia. This may be due to high heterogeneity in the underlying studies.

Advances in software for faster procedure and lower radiotracer dose myocardial perfusion imaging

The American Society of Nuclear Cardiology has recently published documents that encourage laboratories to take all the appropriate steps to greatly decrease patient radiation dose and has set the goal of 50% of all myocardial perfusion studies performed with an associated radiation exposure of 9mSv by 2014. In the present work, a description of the major software techniques readily available to shorten procedure time and decrease injected activity is presented. Particularly new reconstruction methods and their ability to include means for resolution recovery and noise regularization are described. The use of these improved reconstruction algorithms results in a consistent reduction in acquisition time, injected activity and consequently in the radiation dose absorbed by the patient. The clinical implications to the use of these techniques are also described in terms of maintained and even improved study quality, accuracy and sensitivity for the detection of heart disease.

Dose optimization in nuclear medicine

The practice of diagnostic nuclear medicine involves the use of ionizing radiation, and thus the potential risk associated with such exposure must be weighed against the benefits to the patient. This requires that the right test with the right dose be administered to the right patient at the right time. Therefore the procedure should be performed only if it is deemed most appropriate for the clinical question being asked. If appropriate, the procedure should be performed in the most optimum manner that keeps the radiation dose to the patient as low as possible while providing the patient's clinician with information that is needed to devise a plan of medical management. If this approach is followed, the benefits to the patient will far outweigh the small potential risks associate with the procedure. This article discusses these issues, particularly in the context of cardiovascular nuclear medicine and hybrid imaging including PET/CT and SPECT/CT.

Patient-centered imaging: shared decision making for cardiac imaging procedures with exposure to ionizing radiation

The current paper details the recommendations arising from an NIH-NHLBI/NCI-sponsored symposium held in November 2012, aiming to identify key components of a radiation accountability framework fostering patient-centered imaging and shared decision-making in cardiac imaging. Symposium participants, working in 3 tracks, identified key components of a framework to target critical radiation safety issues for the patient, the laboratory, and the larger population of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. The use of ionizing radiation during an imaging procedure should be disclosed to all patients by the ordering provider at the time of ordering, and reinforced by the performing provider team. An imaging protocol with effective dose ≤3 mSv is considered very low risk, not warranting extensive discussion or written informed consent. However, a protocol effective dose >20 mSv was proposed as a level requiring particular attention in terms of shared decision-making and either formal discussion or written informed consent. Laboratory reporting of radiation dosimetry is a critical component of creating a quality laboratory fostering a patient-centered environment with transparent procedural methodology. Efforts should be directed to avoiding testing involving radiation, in patients with inappropriate indications. Standardized reporting and diagnostic reference levels for computed tomography and nuclear cardiology are important for the goal of public reporting of laboratory radiation dose levels in conjunction with diagnostic performance. The development of cardiac imaging technologies revolutionized cardiology practice by allowing routine, noninvasive assessment of myocardial perfusion and anatomy. It is now incumbent upon the imaging community to create an accountability framework to safely drive appropriate imaging utilization.

Developing an action plan for patient radiation safety in adult cardiovascular medicine. Proceedings from the Duke University Clinical Research Institute/American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Think Tank Held on February 28, 2011

Technological advances and increased utilization of medical testing and procedures have prompted greater attention to ensuring the patient safety of radiation use in the practice of adult cardiovascular medicine. In response, representatives from cardiovascular imaging societies, private payers, government and nongovernmental agencies, industry, medical physicists, and patient representatives met to develop goals and strategies toward this end; this report provides an overview of the discussions. This expert "think tank" reached consensus on several broad directions including: the need for broad collaboration across a large number of diverse stakeholders; clarification of the relationship between medical radiation and stochastic events; required education of ordering and providing physicians, and creation of a culture of safety; development of infrastructure to support robust dose assessment and longitudinal tracking; continued close attention to patient selection by balancing the benefit of cardiovascular testing and procedures against carefully minimized radiation exposures; collation, dissemination, and implementation of best practices; and robust education, not only across the healthcare community but also to patients, the public, and media. Finally, because patient radiation safety in cardiovascular imaging is complex, any proposed actions need to be carefully vetted (and monitored) for possible unintended consequences.