Detailed Information on Publication Record
2024
The prognostic value of CZT SPECT stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification—opportunity for stress-first/stress-only protocol
KAMÍNEK, Milan, Martin HAVEL, Vladimír KINCL, Lenka HENZLOVA, Lenka HUDSON et. al.Basic information
Original name
The prognostic value of CZT SPECT stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification—opportunity for stress-first/stress-only protocol
Authors
KAMÍNEK, Milan (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), Martin HAVEL (203 Czech Republic, guarantor), Vladimír KINCL (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), Lenka HENZLOVA (203 Czech Republic) and Lenka HUDSON (203 Czech Republic)
Edition
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, NEW YORK, SPRINGER, 2024, 1619-7070
Other information
Language
English
Type of outcome
Článek v odborném periodiku
Field of Study
30201 Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems
Country of publisher
United States of America
Confidentiality degree
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
References:
Impact factor
Impact factor: 9.100 in 2022
Organization unit
Faculty of Medicine
UT WoS
001108438800001
Keywords in English
myocardial blood flow
Tags
International impact, Reviewed
Změněno: 1/2/2024 08:57, Mgr. Tereza Miškechová
Abstract
V originále
We read with great interest the recent article by Zhang et al. regarding the prognostic value of CZT SPECT myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification. They studied a population of 118 patients with ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA), all of whom underwent dynamic CZT SPECT imaging on a D-SPECT camera. During a median follow-up of 15 months, 19 major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) occurred. Both stress MBF and coronary flow reserve (CFR) were significantly lower in the MACE group. Compared with CFR, stress MBF provided a better prognostic model and remained a robust predictor of MACEs. Several studies previously confirmed feasibility, reproducibility, and good agreement in the calculation of MBF between CZT SPECT and PET-CT. Stress and rest MBF values obtained by CZT-SPECT are different than those measured by PET imaging and are usually higher, especially in the case of no attenuation correction (NAC) data. There can also be an influence of a flow model used for quantification of MBF on CZT SPECT. In the discussion, Zhang et al. mentioned a matter up for debate concerning which parameter (stress MBF or CFR) is better [1]. Results of their study suggest that stress MBF is superior to CFR. However, both stress MBF and CFR can be considered, at least if the values are assessed by means of CZT SPECT.