Randomized Comparison of Clinical Effectiveness of Pharmacologic SPECT and PET MPI in Symptomatic CAD Patients

Abstract

Objectives: This study compared the clinical effectiveness of pharmacologic stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) plus positron emission tomography (PET) with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting with symptoms suggestive of ischemia.

Background: Although PET MPI has been shown to have higher diagnostic accuracy in detecting hemodynamically significant CAD than SPECT MPI, whether this impacts downstream management has not been formally evaluated in randomized trials.

Methods: This study consisted of a single-center trial in which patients with known CAD and suspected ischemia were randomized to undergo PET or attenuation-corrected SPECT MPI between June 2009 and September 2013. Post-test management was at the discretion of the referring physician, and patients were followed for 12 months. The primary endpoint was diagnostic failure, defined as unnecessary angiography (absence of ≥50% stenosis in ≥1 vessel) or additional noninvasive testing within 60 days of the MPI. Secondary endpoints were post-test escalation of antianginal therapy, referral for angiography, coronary revascularization, and health status at 3, 6, and 12 months.

Results: A total of 322 patients with an evaluable MPI were randomized (n = 161 in each group). At baseline, 88.8% of patients were receiving aspirin therapy, 76.7% were taking beta-blockers, and 77.3% were taking statin therapy. Diagnostic failure within 60 days occurred in only 7 patients (2.2%) (3 [1.9%] in the PET group and 4 [2.5%] in the SPECT group; p = 0.70). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in subsequent rates of coronary angiography, coronary revascularization, or health status at 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up (all p values ≥0.20); however, when subjects were stratified by findings on MPI in a post hoc analysis, those with high-risk MPI on PET testing had higher rates of angiography and revascularization on follow-up than those who had SPECT MPI, whereas those undergoing low-risk PET studies had lower rates of both procedures than those undergoing SPECT (interaction between randomized modality ∗high-risk MPI for 12-month catheterization [p = 0.001] and 12-month revascularization [p = 0.09]).

Conclusions: In this contemporary cohort of symptomatic CAD patients who were optimally medically managed, there were no discernible differences in rates of diagnostic failure at 60 days, subsequent coronary angiography, revascularization, or patient health status at 1 year between patients evaluated by pharmacologic PET compared with those evaluated by SPECT MPI. Downstream invasive testing rates with PET MPI were more consistent with high-risk features than those with SPECT MPI. (Effectiveness Study of Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography [SPECT] Versus Positron Emission Tomography [PET] Myocardial Perfusion Imaging; NCT00976053).

Keywords: effectiveness; myocardial perfusion imaging; positron emission tomography; single photon emission computed tomography.

Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Figures

Central Illustration:. Effectiveness Study of Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (AC SPECT) Versus Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: Study design and main results.

AC= Attenuation Corrected

Figure 1:. Longitudinal health status outcomes for patients with known coronary artery disease and new or worsening symptoms randomized to PET vs. SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging over a year of follow-up.

SAQ= Seattle Angina Questionnaire, RDS- Rose Dyspnea Score. Mean scores presented for SAQ and median scores presented for RDS. P values are for differences between PET and SPECT MPI over time, derived using t-test for SAQ physical limitation, angina frequency and quality of life scores, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for RDS.