The power of zero calcium in 82-Rubidium PET irrespective of sex and age.
82Rubdium positron emission tomography
calcium artery calcium score
coronary artery disease
ischemia
power of zero
risk assessment
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:
08 2023
08 2023
Historique:
received:
27
09
2022
accepted:
16
11
2022
medline:
28
7
2023
pubmed:
10
1
2023
entrez:
9
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Despite clinical suspicion, many non-invasive tests for coronary artery disease (CAD) are normal. Coronary artery calcification score (CACS) is a well-validated method to detect and risk stratify CAD. Patients with zero calcium score (ZCS) rarely have abnormal tests. Therefore, aims were to evaluate CACS as a gatekeeper to further functional downstream testing for CAD and estimate potential radiation and cost savings. Consecutive patients with suspected CAD referred for PET were included (n = 2640). Prevalence and test characteristics of ZCS were calculated in different groups. Summed stress score ≥ 4 was considered abnormal and summed difference score ≥ 7 equivalent to ≥ 10% ischemia. To estimate potential radiation/cost reduction, PET scans were hypothetically omitted in ZCS patients. Mean age was 65 ± 11 years, 46% were female. 21% scans were abnormal and 26% of patients had ZCS. CACS was higher in abnormal PET (median 561 vs 27, P < 0.001). Abnormal PET was significantly less frequent in ZCS patients (2.6% vs 27.6%, P < 0.001). Sensitivity/negative predictive value (NPV) of ZCS to detect/exclude abnormal PET and ≥ 10% ischemia were 96.8% (95%-CI 95.0%-97.9%)/97.4% (95.9%-98.3%) and 98.9% (96.7%-99.6%)/99.6% (98.7%-99.9%), respectively. Radiation and cost reduction were estimated to be 23% and 22%, respectively. ZCS is frequent, and most often consistent with normal PET scans. ZCS offers an excellent NPV to exclude an abnormal PET and ≥ 10% ischemia across different gender and age groups. CACS is a suitable gatekeeper before advanced cardiac imaging, and potential radiation/cost savings are substantial. However, further studies including safety endpoints are needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite clinical suspicion, many non-invasive tests for coronary artery disease (CAD) are normal. Coronary artery calcification score (CACS) is a well-validated method to detect and risk stratify CAD. Patients with zero calcium score (ZCS) rarely have abnormal tests. Therefore, aims were to evaluate CACS as a gatekeeper to further functional downstream testing for CAD and estimate potential radiation and cost savings.
METHODS
Consecutive patients with suspected CAD referred for PET were included (n = 2640). Prevalence and test characteristics of ZCS were calculated in different groups. Summed stress score ≥ 4 was considered abnormal and summed difference score ≥ 7 equivalent to ≥ 10% ischemia. To estimate potential radiation/cost reduction, PET scans were hypothetically omitted in ZCS patients.
RESULTS
Mean age was 65 ± 11 years, 46% were female. 21% scans were abnormal and 26% of patients had ZCS. CACS was higher in abnormal PET (median 561 vs 27, P < 0.001). Abnormal PET was significantly less frequent in ZCS patients (2.6% vs 27.6%, P < 0.001). Sensitivity/negative predictive value (NPV) of ZCS to detect/exclude abnormal PET and ≥ 10% ischemia were 96.8% (95%-CI 95.0%-97.9%)/97.4% (95.9%-98.3%) and 98.9% (96.7%-99.6%)/99.6% (98.7%-99.9%), respectively. Radiation and cost reduction were estimated to be 23% and 22%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
ZCS is frequent, and most often consistent with normal PET scans. ZCS offers an excellent NPV to exclude an abnormal PET and ≥ 10% ischemia across different gender and age groups. CACS is a suitable gatekeeper before advanced cardiac imaging, and potential radiation/cost savings are substantial. However, further studies including safety endpoints are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36624363
doi: 10.1007/s12350-022-03174-3
pii: 10.1007/s12350-022-03174-3
pmc: PMC10371904
doi:
Substances chimiques
Calcium
SY7Q814VUP
Rubidium
MLT4718TJW
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1514-1527Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 May 01;18(8):922-929
pubmed: 28379388
N Engl J Med. 2008 Mar 27;358(13):1336-45
pubmed: 18367736
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 May;9(5):580-9
pubmed: 27085440
Int J Cardiol. 2011 Mar 17;147(3):424-7
pubmed: 19892417
J Nucl Cardiol. 2022 Jun;29(3):921-933
pubmed: 34386864
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Jun;2(6):675-88
pubmed: 19520336
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990 Mar 15;15(4):827-32
pubmed: 2407762
Eur Heart J. 2020 Jan 14;41(3):407-477
pubmed: 31504439
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Jul;10(7):
pubmed: 28687538
Am J Cardiol. 2004 May 1;93(9):1150-2
pubmed: 15110209
Circulation. 2021 Nov 30;144(22):e368-e454
pubmed: 34709879
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Oct;36(10):1603-10
pubmed: 19387640
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Feb 16;55(7):627-34
pubmed: 20170786
J Nucl Med. 2015 Sep;56(9):1345-50
pubmed: 26159582
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jul 7;163(1):14-21
pubmed: 26148276
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2009 Sep-Oct;3(5):323-30
pubmed: 19818321
J Nucl Cardiol. 2023 Jun;30(3):1191-1198
pubmed: 36289163
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 Feb;37(2):451-7
pubmed: 11216962
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2022 Apr;15(4):e012599
pubmed: 35414185
Eur Heart J. 2016 Apr 14;37(15):1232-43
pubmed: 26746631
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Oct 19;78(16):1573-1583
pubmed: 34649694
J Nucl Cardiol. 2017 Apr;24(2):494-501
pubmed: 26780529
Circulation. 2008 Apr 1;117(13):1693-700
pubmed: 18362235
Circulation. 2017 Nov 21;136(21):1993-2005
pubmed: 28847895
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Dec 6;58(24):2533-40
pubmed: 22079127
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 Nov;34(11):1765-74
pubmed: 17619189
J Nucl Cardiol. 2016 Oct;23(5):1187-1226
pubmed: 27392702
J Nucl Cardiol. 2013 Jun;20(3):375-84
pubmed: 23468383
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Mar;37(3):517-21
pubmed: 19774376
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Mar;15(3):267-74
pubmed: 23966421
Am J Cardiol. 2007 Aug 1;100(3):409-14
pubmed: 17659919
JAMA. 2010 Apr 28;303(16):1610-6
pubmed: 20424251