Is quantitative analysis superior to visual analysis of planar thallium 201 myocardial exercise scintigraphy in the evaluation of coronary artery disease ? Analysis of a prospective clinical study

• Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine 1990-08, Vol.16 (8-10), p.697-704
• Main Authors: NIEMEYER, M. G, LAARMAN, G. J, VAN DER WALL, E. E, CRAMER, M. J, VERZIJLBERGEN, F. J, ZWINDERMAN, A. H, ASCOOP, C. A. P. L, PAUWELS, E. K. J
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Coronary Disease - diagnostic imaging; Electrocardiography; Exercise Test; Female; Heart - diagnostic imaging; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Radionuclide Imaging; Radionuclide investigations; Thallium Radioisotopes
• ISSN: 0340-6997; 1619-7089
• DOI: 10.1007/BF00998172

Quantitative analysis of myocardial exercise scintigraphy has been previously reported to be superior to visual image interpretation for detection of the presence and extent of coronary artery disease. Computer analysis of perfusion defects and washout rate of thallium 201 was performed on scintigrams from a group of 131 consecutive patients (prospective group), using criteria defined from a previous group of 72 patients (initial group), and compared with visual interpretation of scintigrams for detection and evaluation of coronary artery disease. The sensitivity of the quantitative technique with regard to overall detection of coronary artery disease was not significantly different from the visual method (69% and 74%, respectively), whereas the specificity was higher (86% and 68%). Quantitative analysis did not increase the sensitivity of thallium imaging over the visual method in the left anterior descending artery (46% vs 65%) and the right coronary artery (51% vs 72%) but did increase sensitivity in the left circumflex artery (75% vs 47%). Whereas in the initial group quantitative analysis resulted in a better identification of multivessel disease (sensitivity 81% vs 57%), in the prospective group sensitivity decreased (54% vs 67%) without significant loss of specificity. The initial group had a 40% incidence of three-vessel disease and the prospective group, 22% (P less than 0.05). One-vessel disease was higher in the prospective group (32% vs 11%, P less than 0.05). Thus, assessing the quantitative technique in a larger prospective patient population, there was no improvement of detection of the presence and extent of coronary artery disease when compared with visual interpretation.