Prediction of mortality in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing vasodilator stress testing: a comparison between 99mTc-tetrofosmin and 99mTc-sestamibi.

Published

Journal Article

PURPOSE: To compare the prognostic ability of the imaging agents 99mTc-sestamibi versus 99mTc-tetrofosmin to predict mortality outcomes in patients with documented coronary artery disease and undergoing vasodilator stress testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 2147 consecutive patients who underwent rest and stress single photon emission computed tomographic (SPECT) examination with either 99mTc-sestamibi (n=1128) or 99mTc-tetrofosmin (n=1019). Information relating to all-cause death and cardiovascular death was collected over a 4-year study period. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates were compared for the two imaging agents. Cox proportional hazard models were examined to determine the incremental contribution of SPECT sum stress score (SSS) and the imaging agent after adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics. Additionally, the interaction between SSS and agent was examined to determine if the effect of SSS on prognosis was different for the two agents. RESULTS: Vasodilator agents were used for stress testing in all patients who received 99mTc-tetrofosmin and 99mTc-sestamibi. Despite differences in patient risk factors Kaplan-Meier estimates were similar for the two groups of patients. Resulting P-values for differences between models for the end points of (1) death from any cause and (2) cardiovascular death showed that SSS combined with clinical index was significantly better than a model that adjusted for only baseline characteristics (P<0.0001 for both endpoints). The addition of imaging agent (99mTc-tetrofosmin or 99mTc-sestamibi) to the model containing both SSS and the clinical characteristics did not show further significant improvement (P=0.62, P=0.96 for death from any cause and cardiovascular death, respectively). CONCLUSION: The type of clinically available 99mTc-labelled myocardial perfusion agents did not affect interpretation of results for prognostic assessment.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Adams, GL; Shaw, LK; Tuttle, RH; Hanson, MW; Pagnanelli, R; Borges-Neto, S

Published Date

  • June 2007

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 28 / 6

Start / End Page

  • 457 - 463

PubMed ID

  • 17460536

Pubmed Central ID

  • 17460536

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 0143-3636

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1097/MNM.0b013e328174442d

Language

  • eng

Conference Location

  • England