Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Implementation of a cardiac PET stress program: comparison of outcomes to the preceding SPECT era
Stacey Knight, David B. Min, Viet T. Le, Kent G. Meredith, Ritesh Dhar, Santanu Biswas, Kurt R. Jensen, Steven M. Mason, Jon-David Ethington, Donald L. Lappe, Joseph B. Muhlestein, Jeffrey L. Anderson, Kirk U. Knowlton
Stacey Knight, David B. Min, Viet T. Le, Kent G. Meredith, Ritesh Dhar, Santanu Biswas, Kurt R. Jensen, Steven M. Mason, Jon-David Ethington, Donald L. Lappe, Joseph B. Muhlestein, Jeffrey L. Anderson, Kirk U. Knowlton
View: Text | PDF
Clinical Research and Public Health Cardiology

Implementation of a cardiac PET stress program: comparison of outcomes to the preceding SPECT era

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

BACKGROUND. Cardiac positron emission testing (PET) is more accurate than single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) at identifying coronary artery disease (CAD); however, the 2 modalities have not been thoroughly compared in a real-world setting. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 60-day catheterization outcomes and 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after the transition from a SPECT- to a PET-based myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) program. METHODS. MPI patients at Intermountain Medical Center from January 2011–December 2012 (the SPECT era, n = 6,777) and January 2014–December 2015 (the PET era, n = 7,817) were studied. Outcomes studied were 60-day coronary angiography, high-grade obstructive CAD, left main/severe 3-vessel disease, revascularization, and 1-year MACE-revascularization (MACE-revasc; death, myocardial infarction [MI], or revascularization >60 days). RESULTS. Patients were 64 ± 13 years old; 54% were male and 90% were of European descent; and 57% represented a screening population (no prior MI, revascularization, or CAD). During the PET era, compared with the SPECT era, a higher percentage of patients underwent coronary angiography (13.2% vs. 9.7%, P < 0.0001), had high-grade obstructive CAD (10.5% vs. 6.9%, P < 0.0001), had left main or severe 3-vessel disease (3.0% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.012), and had coronary revascularization (56.7% vs. 47.1%, P = 0.0001). Similar catheterization outcomes were seen when restricted to the screening population. There was no difference in 1-year MACE-revasc (PET [5.8%] vs. SPECT [5.3%], P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS. The PET-based MPI program resulted in improved identification of patients with high-grade obstructive CAD, as well as a larger percentage of revascularization, thus resulting in fewer patients undergoing coronary angiography without revascularization. FUNDING. This observational study was funded using internal departmental funds.

Authors

Stacey Knight, David B. Min, Viet T. Le, Kent G. Meredith, Ritesh Dhar, Santanu Biswas, Kurt R. Jensen, Steven M. Mason, Jon-David Ethington, Donald L. Lappe, Joseph B. Muhlestein, Jeffrey L. Anderson, Kirk U. Knowlton

×
Problems with a PDF?

This file is in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format. If you have not installed and configured the Adobe Acrobat Reader on your system.

Having trouble reading a PDF?

PDFs are designed to be printed out and read, but if you prefer to read them online, you may find it easier if you increase the view size to 125%.

Having trouble saving a PDF?

Many versions of the free Acrobat Reader do not allow Save. You must instead save the PDF from the JCI Online page you downloaded it from. PC users: Right-click on the Download link and choose the option that says something like "Save Link As...". Mac users should hold the mouse button down on the link to get these same options.

Having trouble printing a PDF?

  1. Try printing one page at a time or to a newer printer.
  2. Try saving the file to disk before printing rather than opening it "on the fly." This requires that you configure your browser to "Save" rather than "Launch Application" for the file type "application/pdf", and can usually be done in the "Helper Applications" options.
  3. Make sure you are using the latest version of Adobe's Acrobat Reader.

Supplemental data - Download (460.02 KB)

Advertisement

Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts