Implementation of a cardiac PET stress program: comparison of outcomes to the preceding SPECT era

• Text
• PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND. Cardiac positron emission testing (PET) is more accurate than single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) at identifying coronary artery disease (CAD); however, the 2 modalities have not been thoroughly compared in a real-world setting. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 60-day catheterization outcomes and 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after the transition from a SPECT- to a PET-based myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) program. METHODS. MPI patients at Intermountain Medical Center from January 2011–December 2012 (the SPECT era, n = 6,777) and January 2014–December 2015 (the PET era, n = 7,817) were studied. Outcomes studied were 60-day coronary angiography, high-grade obstructive CAD, left main/severe 3-vessel disease, revascularization, and 1-year MACE-revascularization (MACE-revasc; death, myocardial infarction [MI], or revascularization >60 days). RESULTS. Patients were 64 ± 13 years old; 54% were male and 90% were of European descent; and 57% represented a screening population (no prior MI, revascularization, or CAD). During the PET era, compared with the SPECT era, a higher percentage of patients underwent coronary angiography (13.2% vs. 9.7%, P < 0.0001), had high-grade obstructive CAD (10.5% vs. 6.9%, P < 0.0001), had left main or severe 3-vessel disease (3.0% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.012), and had coronary revascularization (56.7% vs. 47.1%, P = 0.0001). Similar catheterization outcomes were seen when restricted to the screening population. There was no difference in 1-year MACE-revasc (PET [5.8%] vs. SPECT [5.3%], P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS. The PET-based MPI program resulted in improved identification of patients with high-grade obstructive CAD, as well as a larger percentage of revascularization, thus resulting in fewer patients undergoing coronary angiography without revascularization. FUNDING. This observational study was funded using internal departmental funds.

Authors

Stacey Knight, David B. Min, Viet T. Le, Kent G. Meredith, Ritesh Dhar, Santanu Biswas, Kurt R. Jensen, Steven M. Mason, Jon-David Ethington, Donald L. Lappe, Joseph B. Muhlestein, Jeffrey L. Anderson, Kirk U. Knowlton