Differences in Prognostic Value of Myocardial Perfusion Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography Using High-Efficiency Solid-State Detector Between Men and Women in a Large International Multicenter Study.
coronary artery disease
myocardial infarction
myocardial perfusion imaging
prognosis
tomography
Journal
Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging
ISSN: 1942-0080
Titre abrégé: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101479935
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2022
06 2022
Historique:
entrez:
21
6
2022
pubmed:
22
6
2022
medline:
24
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Semiquantitative assessment of stress myocardial perfusion defect has been shown to have greater prognostic value for prediction of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in women compared with men in single-center studies with conventional single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) cameras. We evaluated sex-specific difference in the prognostic value of automated quantification of ischemic total perfusion defect (ITPD) and the interaction between sex and ITPD using high-efficiency SPECT cameras with solid-state detectors in an international multicenter imaging registry (REFINE SPECT [Registry of Fast Myocardial Perfusion Imaging With Next-Generation SPECT]). Rest and exercise or pharmacological stress SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging were performed in 17 833 patients from 5 centers. MACE was defined as the first occurrence of death or myocardial infarction. Total perfusion defect (TPD) at rest, stress, and ejection fraction were quantified automatically by software. ITPD was given by stressTPD-restTPD. Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the association between ITPD versus MACE-free survival and expressed as a hazard ratio. In 10614 men and 7219 women, with a median follow-up of 4.75 years (interquartile range, 3.7-6.1), there were 1709 MACE. In a multivariable Cox model, after adjusting for revascularization and other confounding variables, ITPD was associated with MACE (hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.05-1.1]; In the international, multicenter REFINE SPECT registry, moderate and severe ischemia as quantified by ITPD from high-efficiency SPECT is associated with a worse prognosis in women compared with men.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Semiquantitative assessment of stress myocardial perfusion defect has been shown to have greater prognostic value for prediction of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in women compared with men in single-center studies with conventional single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) cameras. We evaluated sex-specific difference in the prognostic value of automated quantification of ischemic total perfusion defect (ITPD) and the interaction between sex and ITPD using high-efficiency SPECT cameras with solid-state detectors in an international multicenter imaging registry (REFINE SPECT [Registry of Fast Myocardial Perfusion Imaging With Next-Generation SPECT]).
METHODS
Rest and exercise or pharmacological stress SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging were performed in 17 833 patients from 5 centers. MACE was defined as the first occurrence of death or myocardial infarction. Total perfusion defect (TPD) at rest, stress, and ejection fraction were quantified automatically by software. ITPD was given by stressTPD-restTPD. Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the association between ITPD versus MACE-free survival and expressed as a hazard ratio.
RESULTS
In 10614 men and 7219 women, with a median follow-up of 4.75 years (interquartile range, 3.7-6.1), there were 1709 MACE. In a multivariable Cox model, after adjusting for revascularization and other confounding variables, ITPD was associated with MACE (hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.05-1.1];
CONCLUSIONS
In the international, multicenter REFINE SPECT registry, moderate and severe ischemia as quantified by ITPD from high-efficiency SPECT is associated with a worse prognosis in women compared with men.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35727872
doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.121.012741
pmc: PMC9307118
mid: NIHMS1807529
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e012741Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL089765
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R56 HL131871
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Références
J Nucl Cardiol. 2013 Oct;20(5):763-73
pubmed: 23737160
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Jan 19;55(3):221-30
pubmed: 19913381
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996 Jul;28(1):34-44
pubmed: 8752792
J Nucl Cardiol. 2018 Oct;25(5):1784-1846
pubmed: 29802599
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Jan 16;49(2):227-37
pubmed: 17222734
J Nucl Cardiol. 2007 Jul;14(4):420-32
pubmed: 17679051
J Nucl Cardiol. 2012 Dec;19(6):1113-23
pubmed: 23065414
J Nucl Med. 2009 Apr;50(4):635-43
pubmed: 19339672
J Nucl Cardiol. 2005 Jan-Feb;12(1):32-6
pubmed: 15682363
J Nucl Cardiol. 1996 Nov-Dec;3(6 Pt 2):S41-9
pubmed: 8989686
Cardiovasc Res. 2002 Feb 15;53(3):558-67
pubmed: 11861026
J Nucl Med. 2013 Feb;54(2):221-8
pubmed: 23315665
J Nucl Cardiol. 2020 Jun;27(3):1010-1021
pubmed: 29923104
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011 Aug;4(8):880-8
pubmed: 21835380
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Nov 12;62(20):1866-76
pubmed: 23850903
Circulation. 2017 Feb 7;135(6):566-577
pubmed: 27881570
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Mar;13(3):774-785
pubmed: 31202740
Circulation. 2014 Jun 17;129(24):2518-27
pubmed: 24787469
J Nucl Med. 2005 Feb;46(2):204-11
pubmed: 15695777
J Nucl Cardiol. 2007 Jul;14(4):455-65
pubmed: 17679053
J Nucl Cardiol. 2005 Jan-Feb;12(1):66-77
pubmed: 15682367
N Engl J Med. 1993 Jul 22;329(4):247-56
pubmed: 8316269
Circulation. 1996 Mar 1;93(5):905-14
pubmed: 8598081
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 Dec;32(7):1987-95
pubmed: 9857883
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Aug;10(8):
pubmed: 28790123
Cardiol Rev. 2002 Jul-Aug;10(4):211-3
pubmed: 12144731
JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Nov 1;2(11):1179-1180
pubmed: 28877311
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995 Sep;26(3):639-47
pubmed: 7642853
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Apr 2;41(7):1125-33
pubmed: 12679212
Eur Heart J. 2018 Nov 1;39(41):3727-3735
pubmed: 30212857
J Nucl Med. 2010 Jan;51(1):46-51
pubmed: 20008999
J Nucl Med. 2010 Nov;51(11):1724-31
pubmed: 20956478