KAMÍNEK, Milan, Martin HAVEL, Vladimír KINCL, Lenka HENZLOVA and Lenka HUDSON. The prognostic value of CZT SPECT stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification—opportunity for stress-first/stress-only protocol. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. NEW YORK: SPRINGER, 2024, vol. 51, No 2, p. 344-345. ISSN 1619-7070. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-023-06531-7.
Other formats:   BibTeX LaTeX RIS
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
Original language English
Type of outcome Article in a journal
Field of Study 30201 Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems
Country of publisher United States of America
Confidentiality degree is not subject to a state or trade secret
WWW URL
Impact factor Impact factor: 9.100 in 2022
Organization unit Faculty of Medicine
Doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-023-06531-7
UT WoS 001108438800001
Keywords in English myocardial blood flow
Tags 14110115, 14110132, rivok
Tags International impact, Reviewed
Changed by Changed by: Mgr. Tereza Miškechová, učo 341652. Changed: 1/2/2024 08:57.
Abstract
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.
PrintDisplayed: 20/7/2024 12:24