Comparison of diabetes to other prognostic predictors among patients referred for cardiac stress testing: A contemporary analysis from the REFINE SPECT Registry.
Diabetes mellitus
coronary artery disease
myocardial perfusion imaging
prognosis
Journal
Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology
ISSN: 1532-6551
Titre abrégé: J Nucl Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9423534
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2022
12 2022
Historique:
received:
17
05
2021
accepted:
12
08
2021
pubmed:
11
11
2021
medline:
14
1
2023
entrez:
10
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Diabetes mellitus (DM) is increasingly prevalent among contemporary populations referred for cardiac stress testing, but its potency as a predictor for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) vs other clinical variables is not well delineated. From 19,658 patients who underwent SPECT-MPI, we identified 3122 patients with DM without known coronary artery disease (CAD) (DM+/CAD-) and 3564 without DM with known CAD (DM-/CAD+). Propensity score matching was used to control for the differences in characteristics between DM+/CAD- and DM-/CAD+ groups. There was comparable MACE in the matched DM+/CAD- and DM-/CAD+ groups (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.97-1.37). By Chi-square analysis, type of stress (exercise or pharmacologic), total perfusion deficit (TPD), and left ventricular function were the most potent predictors of MACE, followed by CAD and DM status. The combined consideration of mode of stress, TPD, and DM provided synergistic stratification, an 8.87-fold (HR 8.87, 95% CI 7.27-10.82) increase in MACE among pharmacologically stressed patients with DM and TPD > 10% (vs non-ischemic, exercised stressed patients without DM). Propensity-matched patients with DM and no known CAD have similar MACE risk compared to patients with known CAD and no DM. DM is synergistic with mode of stress testing and TPD in predicting the risk of cardiac stress test patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Diabetes mellitus (DM) is increasingly prevalent among contemporary populations referred for cardiac stress testing, but its potency as a predictor for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) vs other clinical variables is not well delineated.
METHODS AND RESULTS
From 19,658 patients who underwent SPECT-MPI, we identified 3122 patients with DM without known coronary artery disease (CAD) (DM+/CAD-) and 3564 without DM with known CAD (DM-/CAD+). Propensity score matching was used to control for the differences in characteristics between DM+/CAD- and DM-/CAD+ groups. There was comparable MACE in the matched DM+/CAD- and DM-/CAD+ groups (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.97-1.37). By Chi-square analysis, type of stress (exercise or pharmacologic), total perfusion deficit (TPD), and left ventricular function were the most potent predictors of MACE, followed by CAD and DM status. The combined consideration of mode of stress, TPD, and DM provided synergistic stratification, an 8.87-fold (HR 8.87, 95% CI 7.27-10.82) increase in MACE among pharmacologically stressed patients with DM and TPD > 10% (vs non-ischemic, exercised stressed patients without DM).
CONCLUSIONS
Propensity-matched patients with DM and no known CAD have similar MACE risk compared to patients with known CAD and no DM. DM is synergistic with mode of stress testing and TPD in predicting the risk of cardiac stress test patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34757571
doi: 10.1007/s12350-021-02810-8
pii: 10.1007/s12350-021-02810-8
pmc: PMC9085969
mid: NIHMS1792921
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3003-3014Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL089765
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology.
Références
Rozanski A, Berman D. Optimizing the assessment of patient clinical risk at the time of cardiac stress testing. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2020;13:616‐23.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.01.038
Han D, Rozanski A, Gransar H, Sharir T, Einstein AJ, Fish MB. Myocardial ischemic burden and differences in prognosis among patients with and without diabetes: Results from the multicenter international REFINE SPECT Registry. Diabetes Care 2020;43:453‐9.
doi: 10.2337/dc19-1360
Haffner SM, Lehto S, Ronnemaa T, Pyorala K, Laakso M. Mortality from coronary heart disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes and in nondiabetic subjects with and without prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1998;339:229‐34.
doi: 10.1056/NEJM199807233390404
Schramm TK, Gislason GH, Kober L, Rasmussen S, Rasmussen JN, Abildstrom SZ, et al. Diabetes patients requiring glucose-lowering therapy and nondiabetics with a prior myocardial infarction carry the same cardiovascular risk: A population study of 3.3 million people. Circulation 2008;117:1945‐54.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.720847
Bulugahapitiya U, Siyambalapitiya S, Sithole J, Idris I. Is diabetes a coronary risk equivalent? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabet Med 2009;26:142‐8.
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2008.02640.x
Rana JS, Liu JY, Moffet HH, Jaffe M, Karter AJ. Diabetes and prior coronary heart disease are not necessarily risk equivalent for future coronary heart disease events. J Gen Intern Med 2016;31:387‐93.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3556-3
Morales DCV, Bhavnani SP, Ahlberg AW, Pullatt RC, Katten DM, Polk DM, et al. Coronary risk equivalence of diabetes assessed by SPECT-MPI. J Nucl Cardiol 2019;26:1093‐102.
doi: 10.1007/s12350-017-1114-6
Slomka PJ, Betancur J, Liang JX, Otaki Y, Hu LH, Sharir T, et al. Rationale and design of the REgistry of Fast Myocardial Perfusion Imaging with NExt generation SPECT (REFINE SPECT). J Nucl Cardiol 2018;27:1010.
doi: 10.1007/s12350-018-1326-4
Gambhir SS, Berman DS, Ziffer J, Nagler M, Sandler M, Patton J, et al. A novel high-sensitivity rapid-acquisition single-photon cardiac imaging camera. J Nucl Med 2009;50:635‐43.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.060020
Herzog BA, Buechel RR, Katz R, Brueckner M, Husmann L, Burger IA, et al. Nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging with a cadmium-zinc-telluride detector technique: Optimized protocol for scan time reduction. J Nucl Med 2010;51:46‐51.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.109.065532
Dorbala S, Ananthasubramaniam K, Armstrong IS, Chareonthaitawee P, DePuey EG, Einstein AJ, et al. Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging guidelines: Instrumentation, acquisition, processing, and interpretation. J Nucl Cardiol 2018;25:1784‐846.
doi: 10.1007/s12350-018-1283-y
Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Berman DS. Comparison of the short-term survival benefit associated with revascularization compared with medical therapy in patients with no prior coronary artery disease undergoing stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography. Circulation 2003;107:2900‐7.
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000072790.23090.41
Nakazato R, Berman DS, Gransar H, Hyun M, Miranda-Peats R, Kite FC, et al. Prognostic value of quantitative high-speed myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2012;19:1113‐23.
doi: 10.1007/s12350-012-9619-5
Imbens GW. The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika 2000;87:706‐10.
doi: 10.1093/biomet/87.3.706
Williams RL. A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biometrics 2000;56:645‐6.
doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00645.x
Cameron AC, Miller DL. A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. J Hum Resour 2015;50:317‐72.
doi: 10.3368/jhr.50.2.317
Control CfD, Prevention. National diabetes statistics report, 2020. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services 2020.
Rozanski A, Gransar H, Min JK, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Thomson LE, et al. Long-term mortality following normal exercise myocardial perfusion SPECT according to coronary disease risk factors. J Nucl Cardiol 2014;21:341‐50.
doi: 10.1007/s12350-013-9830-z
Navare SM, Mather JF, Shaw LJ, Fowler MS, Heller GV. Comparison of risk stratification with pharmacologic and exercise stress myocardial perfusion imaging: A meta-analysis. J Nucl Cardiol 2004;11:551‐61.
doi: 10.1016/j.nuclcard.2004.06.128
Supariwala A, Uretsky S, Depuey EG, Thotakura G, Kanneganti S, Guriginjakunta N, et al. Influence of mode of stress and coronary risk factor burden upon long-term mortality following normal stress myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomographic imaging. Am J Cardiol 2013;111:846‐50.
doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.11.040
Acampa W, Petretta M, Cuocolo R, Daniele S, Cantoni V, Cuocolo A. Warranty period of normal stress myocardial perfusion imaging in diabetic patients: A propensity score analysis. J Nucl Cardiol 2014;21:50‐6.
doi: 10.1007/s12350-013-9788-x
Nappi C, Gaudieri V, Acampa W, Assante R, Zampella E, Mainolfi CG, et al. Comparison of left ventricular shape by gated SPECT imaging in diabetic and nondiabetic patients with normal myocardial perfusion: A propensity score analysis. J Nucl Cardiol 2018;25:394‐403.
doi: 10.1007/s12350-017-1009-6
Assante R, Acampa W, Zampella E, Arumugam P, Nappi C, Gaudieri V, et al. Coronary atherosclerotic burden vs. coronary vascular function in diabetic and nondiabetic patients with normal myocardial perfusion: A propensity score analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017;44:1129‐35.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3671-y
Wagenknecht LE, Zaccaro D, Espeland MA, Karter AJ, O’Leary DH, Haffner SM. Diabetes and progression of carotid atherosclerosis: The insulin resistance atherosclerosis study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2003;23:1035‐41.
doi: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000072273.67342.6D
Kim JA, Montagnani M, Koh KK, Quon MJ. Reciprocal relationships between insulin resistance and endothelial dysfunction: Molecular and pathophysiological mechanisms. Circulation 2006;113:1888‐904.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.563213
Avogaro A, Albiero M, Menegazzo L, de Kreutzenberg S, Fadini GP. Endothelial dysfunction in diabetes: The role of reparatory mechanisms. Diabetes Care 2011;34:S285‐90.
doi: 10.2337/dc11-s239
Kim U, Leipsic JA, Sellers SL, Shao M, Blanke P, Hadamitzky M, et al. Natural history of diabetic coronary atherosclerosis by quantitative measurement of serial coronary computed tomographic angiography: Results of the PARADIGM Study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2018;11:1461‐71.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.04.009
Raggi P, Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Callister TQ. Prognostic value of coronary artery calcium screening in subjects with and without diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:1663‐9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.09.068
Wong ND, Cordola Hsu AR, Rozanski A, Shaw LJ, Whelton SP, Budoff MJ, et al. Sex differences in coronary artery calcium and mortality from coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and all causes in adults with diabetes: The Coronary Calcium Consortium. Diabetes Care 2020;43:2597‐606.
doi: 10.2337/dc20-0166
Elkeles RS, Godsland IF, Feher MD, Rubens MB, Roughton M, Nugara F, et al. Coronary calcium measurement improves prediction of cardiovascular events in asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes: The PREDICT study. Eur Heart J 2008;29:2244‐51.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehn279
Muhlestein JB, Lappé DL, Lima JA, Rosen BD, May HT, Knight S, et al. Effect of screening for coronary artery disease using CT angiography on mortality and cardiac events in high-risk patients with diabetes: The FACTOR-64 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;312:2234‐43.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.15825
Blanke P, Naoum C, Ahmadi A, Cheruvu C, Soon J, Arepalli C, et al. Long-term prognostic utility of coronary CT angiography in stable patients with diabetes mellitus. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;9:1280‐8.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.12.027
Skali H, Murthy VL, Al-Mallah MH, Bateman TM, Beanlands R, Better N, et al. Guidance and best practices for nuclear cardiology laboratories during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: An Information Statement from ASNC and SNMMI. J Nucl Cardiol 2020;27:1022‐9.
doi: 10.1007/s12350-020-02123-2