This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: j.jacc.2009.09.022v1 55/3/221    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chang, S. M. Articles by Mahmarian, J. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chang, S. M. Articles by Mahmarian, J. J. Related Collections Related Articles

EXPEDITED PUBLICATION

Normal Stress-Only Versus Standard Stress/Rest Myocardial Perfusion Imaging

Similar Patient Mortality With Reduced Radiation Exposure

Su Min Chang, MD^_*, Faisal Nabi, MD^_*, Jiaqiong Xu, PhD, Umara Raza, MD^_* and John J. Mahmarian, MD^_*,_*

^_* Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center
Methodist Hospital Research Institute, The Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas

Manuscript received August 12, 2009; revised manuscript received September 22, 2009, accepted September 28, 2009.

^_* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. John J. Mahmarian, Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, 6550 Fannin Street, Suite 677, Houston, Texas 77030 (Email: jmahmarian{at}tmhs.org).

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine whether a normal stress-only single-photon emission computed tomographic myocardial perfusion tomography (SPECT) study confers the same prognosis as a normal SPECT on the basis of evaluation of stress and rest images.

Background: Current guidelines recommend stress and rest imaging to confirm that a SPECT study is normal.

Methods: We determined all-cause mortality in 16,854 consecutive patients who had a normal gated stress SPECT. Median follow-up was 4.5 years. A stress-only protocol was used in 8,034 patients (47.6%), whereas 8,820 (52.4%) had both stress and rest imaging.

Results: The overall unadjusted annual mortality rate in patients who had a normal SPECT with a stress-only protocol was lower than in those who required additional rest imaging (2.57% vs. 2.92%, p = 0.02). After adjustment for baseline clinical characteristics no significant differences in patient mortality were seen between the 2 imaging protocols, but the stress-only group received a 61% lower radiopharmaceutical dosage. Independent predictors of worse survival included increasing age, male sex, diabetes, history of coronary artery disease, and inability to exercise (all p < 0.001) but not the type of SPECT protocol used to image patients.

Conclusions: Patients determined to have a normal SPECT on the basis of stress imaging alone have a similar mortality rate as those who have a normal SPECT on the basis of evaluation of both stress and rest images. Our results support that additional rest imaging is not required in patients who have a normally appearing initial stress study. A significant reduction in radiation exposure can be achieved with such an approach.

Key Words: myocardial perfusion imaging • risk stratification

Abbreviations and Acronyms   BMI = body mass index   CAD = coronary artery disease   ECG = electrocardiogram   LV = left ventricular   LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction   SPECT = single-photon emission computed tomography   Tc = technetium   TR = time ratio

Related Articles

Reply

A.M. Richards for the BATTLESCARRED Trial Authors
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2010 55: 2610. [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. M. Bourque and G. A. Beller Stress Myocardial Perfusion Imaging for Assessing Prognosis: An Update J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img., December 1, 2011; 4(12): 1305 - 1319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. A. Dvorak, R. K. J. Brown, and J. R. Corbett Interpretation of SPECT/CT Myocardial Perfusion Images: Common Artifacts and Quality Control Techniques RadioGraphics, November 1, 2011; 31(7): 2041 - 2057. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Cardiovascular Nuclear Imaging: Balancing Proven Clinical Value and Potential Radiation Risk J. Nucl. Med., July 1, 2011; 52(7): 1162 - 1164. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. N. DeMaria, J. J. Bax, O. Ben-Yehuda, G. K. Feld, B. H. Greenberg, J. Hall, M. Hlatky, W. Y. W. Lew, J. A. C. Lima, A. S. Maisel, et al. Highlights of the Year in JACC 2010 J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 25, 2011; 57(4): 480 - 514. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Achenbach, C. M. Kramer, W. A. Zoghbi, and V. Dilsizian The Year in Coronary Artery Disease J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img., October 1, 2010; 3(10): 1065 - 1077. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. C. Bhalodkar and S. Blum Normal Stress-Only Versus Standard Stress/Rest Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: Similar Patient Mortality With Reduced Radiation Exposure J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 8, 2010; 55(23): 2611 - 2612. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Mahmarian and S. M. Chang Reply. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 8, 2010; 55(23): 2612 - 2613. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Kim and S. Bokhari Practical Considerations for 1-Day Stress-Only Myocardial Perfusion Protocol J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 8, 2010; 55(23): 2610 - 2611. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. J. Shaw, S. Achenbach, Y. Chandrashekhar, V. Dilsizian, W. G. Hundley, M. J. Kern, C. M. Kramer, T. H. Marwick, W. A. Zoghbi, and J. Narula Imaging Modalities and Radiation: Benefit Has Its Risks... J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img., May 1, 2010; 3(5): 550 - 552. [Full Text] [PDF]