[The impact of the clinical data and the interhospital agreement in the interpretation of myocardial perfusion tomography].
Rev Esp Cardiol 1999;
52:892-7. [PMID:
10611803 DOI:
10.1016/s0300-8932(99)75020-7]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study is to analyze the impact of clinical data and the interhospital agreement in the interpretation of myocardial perfusion single photon emission tomography (SPECT) images and polar mapping.
METHODS
150 patients from 5 hospitals were studied. Each center contributed with tomographic images and polar maps of 99mTc-tetrofosmin exercise SPECT and clinical reports of 30 patients. Thus, 300 images (150 of tomographic images and 150 of polar maps) were interpreted by each center without knowledge of clinical data of the patient ("blinded" report).
RESULTS
90 (60%) out of 150 patients had a coronary stenosis > or = 50%. Sensitivity and specificity of "non blinded" report were 91% and 86%, respectively. Sensitivity determined by majority decision (three or more centers) was 82% for tomographic images and 83% for polar maps (p = 0.002 and p = 0.03, respectively, regarding the "non-blinded" report). Specificity was 88% for tomographic images and 79% for polar map (p = 0.05 with respect to tomographic images). Interhospital agreement was good not only for tomographic images (kappa: 0.625) but for polar maps (kappa: 0.7) as well.
CONCLUSIONS
Sensitivity of clinical or "non blinded" report of myocardial perfusion SPECT is significantly higher than the "blinded" report. Specificity of the "blinded" report of polar mapping is lower than that of tomographic images. A good interhospital agreement in interpretation of both types of images was observed.
Collapse