Exercise Echocardiography or Exercise SPECT Imaging?

Abstract

Context.-Cardiac imaging has advanced rapidly, providing clinicians with several choices for evaluating patients with suspected coronary artery disease, but few studies compare modalities directly.Objectives.-To review the contemporary literature and to compare the diagnostic performance of exercise echocardiography (ECHO) and exercise singlephoton emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease.Data Sources.-Studies published between January 1990 and October 1997 identified from MEDLINE search; bibliographies of reviews and original articles; and suggestions from experts in each area.Study Selection.-Articles were included if they discussed exercise ECHO and/or exercise SPECT imaging with thallous chloride TI 201 (thallium) or technetium Tc 99m sestamibi for detection and/or evaluation of coronary artery disease, if data on coronary angiography were presented as the reference test, and if the absolute numbers of true-positive, false-negative, true-negative, and false-positive observations were available or derivable from the data presented. Studies performed exclusively in patients after myocardial infarction, after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, after coronary artery bypass grafting, or with recent unstable coronary syndromes were excluded.Data Extraction.-Clinical variables, technical factors, and test performance were independently extracted by 2 reviewers on a standardized spreadsheet. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.Results.-Forty-four articles met inclusion criteria. In pooled data weighted by the sample size of each study, exercise ECHO had a sensitivity of 85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83%-87%) with a specificity of 77% (95% CI, 74%-80%). Exercise SPECT yielded a similar sensitivity of 87% (95% CI, 86%-88%) but a lower specificity of 64% (95% CI, 60%-68%). In a summary receiver operating characteristic model comparing exercise ECHO performance to exercise SPECT, exercise ECHO was associated with significantly better discriminatory power (parameter estimate, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.71-1.65), when adjusted for age, publication year, and a setting including known coronary artery disease for SPECT studies. In models comparing the discriminatory abilities of exercise ECHO and exercise SPECT vs exercise testing without imaging, both ECHO and SPECT performed significantly better than exercise testing. The incremental improvement in performance was greater for ECHO (3.43; 95% CI, 2.74-4.11) than for SPECT (1.49; 95% CI, 0.91-2.08).Conclusions.-Exercise ECHO and exercise SPECT have similar sensitivities for the detection of coronary artery disease, but exercise ECHO has better specificity and, therefore, higher overall discriminatory capabilities as used in contemporary practice.

Impact of Myocardial Perfusion Imaging with PET and 82Rb on Downstream Invasive Procedure Utilization, Costs, and Outcomes in Coronary Disease Management

“…4). In a meta-analysis of 44 studies published between January 1990 and October 1997, the sensitivity of exercise SPECT was found to be 87% (95% confidence interval ½CI, 86%-88%) with specificity of 64% (95% CI, 60%-68%) (19). In contrast, both sensitivity and specificity of CAD detection with PET is at least 95% in populations with an intermediate pCAD (20)(21)(22)(23)(24).…”

Relation Between Platelet Response to Exercise and Coronary Angiographic Findings in Patients With Effort Angina

“…Noninvasive imaging (eg, radionuclide and echocardiographic) stress tests have been proposed. 21,22 Even these, however, may lack adequate sensitivity and specificity and may be rather expensive. The response of exercise ECG to nitrates may help identify, among anginal patients, those who are likely to have NCAs.…”

Initial Diagnostic Evaluation of Stable Coronary Artery Disease: The Need for a Patient‐Centered Strategy

“…This is certainly disparate to the findings of many who have shown the very high diagnostic accuracy of CCTA6, 7 for the detection of obstructive CAD and begs the question of who got invasive coronary angiography and who did not and the reasons for these evaluations. It is also surprising that stress echocardiography and stress single‐photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging did not demonstrate higher diagnostic accuracy than GXT, which is very much in conflict with the existing literature 8, 9, 10. Additionally, the concern raised by the author about the apparent discordance between stress imaging procedures and invasive coronary angiography is not new, as there is an abundance of evidence highlighting the difference between the anatomic assessment of CAD and the results of functional testing, which are based on coronary physiology 11, 12.…”