J 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.

Základní údaje

Originální název

The prognostic value of CZT SPECT stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification—opportunity for stress-first/stress-only protocol

Autoři

KAMÍNEK, Milan (203 Česká republika, domácí), Martin HAVEL (203 Česká republika, garant), Vladimír KINCL (203 Česká republika, domácí), Lenka HENZLOVA (203 Česká republika) a Lenka HUDSON (203 Česká republika)

Vydání

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, NEW YORK, SPRINGER, 2024, 1619-7070

Další údaje

Jazyk

angličtina

Typ výsledku

Článek v odborném periodiku

Obor

30201 Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems

Stát vydavatele

Spojené státy

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Odkazy

Impakt faktor

Impact factor: 9.100 v roce 2022

Organizační jednotka

Lékařská fakulta

UT WoS

001108438800001

Klíčová slova anglicky

myocardial blood flow

Štítky

Příznaky

Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno
Změněno: 1. 2. 2024 08:57, Mgr. Tereza Miškechová

Anotace

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.