Diagnostic accuracy of cardiac positron emission tomography versus single photon emission computed tomography for coronary artery disease: A bivariate meta-analysis

Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging

Volumn 5, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 700-707

  Parker, Matthew W ^a,c   Iskandar, Aline ^a   Limone, Brendan ^b   Perugini, Andrew ^b   Kim, Hyejin ^b   Jones, Charles ^b   Calamari, Brian ^b   Coleman, Craig I ^b,c   Heller, Gary V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^c HARTFORD HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Cardiac PET; Coronary artery disease; Meta analysis; Myocardial perfusion imaging; Single photon emission computed tomography

Indexed keywords

ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CARDIAC PATIENT; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; CORONARY ARTERY OBSTRUCTION; DATA BASE; DATA EXTRACTION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; META ANALYSIS; MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; HUMANS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TOMOGRAPHY, EMISSION-COMPUTED, SINGLE-PHOTON;

EID: 84872244212     PISSN: 19419651     EISSN: 19420080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.112.978270     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, et al American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58: e44-122.
2. 2008 Nuclear medicine: Market summary report. 2008;IV: 19-30.
3. Yoshinaga K, Chow BJ, Williams K, Chen L, deKemp RA, Garrard L, Lok-Tin Szeto A, Aung M, Davies RA, Ruddy TD, Beanlands RS. What is the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48: 1029-1039.
4. Beanlands RS, Youssef G. Diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease: PET is superior to SPECT: Pro. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17: 683-695.
5. Merhige ME, Breen WJ, Shelton V, Houston T, D'Arcy BJ, Perna AF. Impact of myocardial perfusion imaging with PET and (82)Rb on downstream invasive procedure utilization, costs, and outcomes in coronary disease management. J Nucl Med. 2007;48: 1069-1076.
6. Cerqueira MD. Diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease: PET is superior to SPECT: Con. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17: 678-682.
7. Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, Brennan JM, Redberg RF, Anderson HV, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med. 2010;362: 886-895.
8. Fleischmann KE, Hunink MG, Kuntz KM, Douglas PS. Exercise echocardiography or exercise SPECT imaging? A meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance. JAMA. 1998;280: 913-920.
9. Kim C, Kwok YS, Heagerty P, Redberg R. Pharmacologic stress testing for coronary disease diagnosis: A meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2001;142: 934-944.
10. Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH, Bateman TM, Messer JV, Berman DS, et al American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association; American Society for Nuclear Cardiology. ACC/AHA/ASNC guidelines for the clinical use of cardiac radionuclide imaging-executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASNC Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42: 1318-1333.
11. Nandalur KR, Dwamena BA, Choudhri AF, Nandalur SR, Reddy P, Carlos RC. Diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography in the detection of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Acad Radiol. 2008;15: 444-451.
12. Al Moudi M, Sun Z, Lenzo N. Diagnostic value of SPECT, PET and PET/CT in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: A systematic review. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2011;7: e9.
13. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58: 982-990.
14. Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks J, Harbord R, Takwoingi Y. Analysing and presenting results. In: Deeks J, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2010.z
15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151: 264-9, W64.
16. Kastner M, Wilczynski NL, McKibbon AK, Garg AX, Haynes RB. Diagnostic test systematic reviews: bibliographic search filters ("Clinical Queries") for diagnostic accuracy studies perform well. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62: 974-981.
17. Libby P, Bonow RO, Mann DL, Zipes DP. Braunwald's Heart Disease: A textbook of cardiovascular medicine. 8th ed. Saunders; 2007.
18. Heller GV, Hendel R. Nuclear cardiology: Practical applications. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Professional; 2010.
19. Fuster V, Walsh R, Harrington R. Hurst's The Heart. McGraw-Hill Professional; 2010.
20. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3: 25.
21. Cingi E, Temiz NH, Yildirim N, Timurkaynak T, Cengel A, Unlü M. Detection of stent restenosis in single vessel CAD: comparison of 201Tl and gated 99mTc-MIBI SPECT. Nucl Med Commun. 2004;25: 479-486.
22. Demangeat JL, Gries P, Bessekri A, Fellinger F. Surface rendering of three-dimensional myocardial SPECT: clinical usefulness compared with bull's-eye and conventional tomograms. J Nucl Cardiol. 1997;4: 349-357.
23. Gould KL, Hamilton GW, Lipscomb K, Ritchie JL, Kennedy JW. Method for assessing stress-induced regional malperfusion during coronary arteriography. Experimental validation and clinical application. Am J Cardiol. 1974;34: 557-564.
24. Rockville MD. Methods guide for medical test reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
25. Dilsizian V, Bacharach SL, Beanlands R, Bergmann SR, Delbeke D, Gropler RJ, et al. ASNC imaging guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures: PET myocardial perfusion and metabolism imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16: 651.
26. Holly TA, Abbott BG, Al-Mallah M, Calnon DA, Cohen MC, DiFilippo FP, et al American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. Single photon-emission computed tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17: 941-973.
27. Cerqueira MD, Allman KC, Ficaro EP, Hansen CL, Nichols KJ, Thompson RC, et al. Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17: 709-718.
28. Senthamizhchelvan S, Bravo PE, Esaias C, Lodge MA, Merrill J, Hobbs RF, et al. Human biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 82Rb. J Nucl Med. 2010;51: 1592-1599.
29. Bateman TM, Heller GV, McGhie AI, Friedman JD, Case JA, Bryngelson JR, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of rest/stress ECG-gated Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET: comparison with ECG-gated Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13: 24-33.
30. Husmann L, Wiegand M, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, Schepis T, Siegrist PT, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of myocardial perfusion imaging with single photon emission computed tomography and positron emission tomography: a comparison with coronary angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;24: 511-518.
31. de Groot JA, Dendukuri N, Janssen KJ, Reitsma JB, Brophy J, Joseph L, et al. Adjusting for partial verification or workup bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175: 847-853.
32. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155: 529-536.
33. Gould KL. Does coronary flow trump coronary anatomy? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2: 1009-1023.