Show simple item record

Comparison of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography and thallium-201 SPECT imaging for detection of coronary artery disease

dc.contributor.authorStewart, Richard E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSchwaiger, Markusen_US
dc.contributor.authorMolina, Edgaren_US
dc.contributor.authorPopma, Jeffrey J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGacioch, Gerald M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKalus, Mortonen_US
dc.contributor.authorSquicciarini, Sheilaen_US
dc.contributor.authorAi-Aouar, Ziad R.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSchork, Anthonyen_US
dc.contributor.authorKuhl, David E.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-04-10T14:41:22Z
dc.date.available2006-04-10T14:41:22Z
dc.date.issued1991-06-15en_US
dc.identifier.citationStewart, Richard E., Schwaiger, Markus, Molina, Edgar, Popma, Jeffrey, Gacioch, Gerald M., Kalus, Morton, Squicciarini, Sheila, Ai-Aouar, Ziad R., Schork, Anthony, Kuhl, David E. (1991/06/15)."Comparison of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography and thallium-201 SPECT imaging for detection of coronary artery disease." The American Journal of Cardiology 67(16): 1303-1310. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/29280>en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T10-4C7094C-SX/2/68073125cfa168341ebd248b1b5632dfen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/29280
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=2042560&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractThe diagnostic performance of rubidium-82 (Rb-82) positron emission tomography (PET) and thallium-201 (TI-201) single-photon emission-computed tomography (SPECT) for detecting coronary artery disease was investigated in 81 patients (52 men, 29 women). PET studies using 60 mCi of Rb-82 were performed at baseline and after intravenous infusion of 0.56 mg/kg dipyridamole in conjunction with handgrip stress. TI-201 SPECT was performed after dipyridamole-handgrip stress and, in a subset of patients, after treadmill exercise. Sensitivity, specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy were assessed using both visually and quantitatively interpreted coronary angiograms. The overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET for detection of coronary artery disease (&gt;50% diameter stenosis) were 84,88 and 85%, respectively. In comparison, the performance of SPECT revealed a sensitivity of 84%, specificity of 53% (p &lt; 0.05 vs PET) and accuracy of 79%. Similar results were obtained using either visual or quantitative angiographic criteria for severity of coronary artery disease. In 43 patients without prior myocardial infarction, the sensitivity for detection of disease was 71 and 73%, respectively, similar for both PET and SPECT. There was no significant difference in diagnostic performance between imaging modalities when 2 different modes of stress (exercise treadmill vs intravenous dipyridamole plus handgrip) were used with SPECT imaging. Thus, Rb-82 PET provides improved specificity compared with TI-201 SPECT for identifying coronary artery disease, most likely due to the higher photon energy of Rb-82 and attenuation correction provided by PET. However, post-test referral cannot be entirely excluded as a potential explanation for the lower specificity of TI-201 SPECT.en_US
dc.format.extent2130412 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.titleComparison of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography and thallium-201 SPECT imaging for detection of coronary artery diseaseen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialtiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumFrom the University of Michigan Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumFrom the University of Michigan Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumFrom the University of Michigan Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumFrom the University of Michigan Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumFrom the University of Michigan Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumFrom the University of Michigan Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumFrom the University of Michigan Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumFrom the University of Michigan Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumFrom the University of Michigan Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumFrom the University of Michigan Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.identifier.pmid2042560en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/29280/1/0000339.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(91)90456-Uen_US
dc.identifier.sourceThe American Journal of Cardiologyen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.