Difficulties of Diagnostics of Obstructive Coronary Artery Lesions in Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease and Possibilities of Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography

Purpose: to assess diagnostic capabilities of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in the detection of obstructive coronary artery (CA) lesions, depending on the meeting appropriate use criteria. Materials and Methods: We used in this retrospective analysis data from 107 patients with previously diagnosed ischemic heart disease (IHD) or in need to exclude it, who were hospitalized in inpatient departments of the Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases in the period from 2012 to 2015. All patients underwent coronary angiography (CAG) and SPECT (the time interval between the studies did not exceed 3 months) for detection of hemodynamically significant CA stenoses. Patients were distributed into two groups according SPECT imaging appropriateness score: group 1–88 patients with score 7–9 (in whom SPECT imaging was appropriate), group 2–19 patients with score 1–6 (in whom SPECT imaging was uncertain, possibly appropriate, or inappropriate. Results. Clinical signs and symptoms of angina pectoris were predominantly found in group 1 patients (p=0.499). Asymptomatic patients were more likely to be found in group 2 (p<0.001). Group 1 patients commonly had high pretest probability (PTP) (over 90 %, p<0.001), whereas group 2 patients commonly had low PTP (5–10 %, p<0.001). Mean PTP was 77 and 58 % in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.003). According to positive SPECT imaging, significant CA lesions were more often found in group 1 compared to group 2 (31.8 and 10.5 %, respectively, p=0.060). Two- and three-vessel disease prevailed in group 1 (25 % and 14.7 %) according the analysis of prevalence and location of hemodynamically significant CA lesions, although the data did not reach statistical significance (p=0.057 and p=0.073). Stenoses >70 % were more commonly detected in group 1, compared to group 2: in anterior descending artery 52.3 vs. 5.3 % (p<0.001), circumflex artery 35.2 vs. 10.5 %; (p=0.034), right coronary artery 34.1 vs. 10.5 % (p=0.041). The sensitivity in both groups was rather low (40 % vs. 25 %), whereas specificity was 83 % in group 1 and 93 % in group 2. Conclusion. According to clinical examination, patients with IHD and indications for SPECT imaging more often had obstructive CA lesions (63.6 %), than patients with questionable or no indications (21.1 %). However, rate of positive findings during stress tests with SPECT imaging was low in both groups and did not differ significantly (p=0.06). Despite high specificity of SPECT imaging, its sensitivity was low in both groups.

1. Fihn S.D., Gardin J.M., Abrams J. et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:e44–e164, DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.013.

2. Montalescot G., Sechtem U., Achenbach S. et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: The Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2013;34:2949–3003. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht296.

3. Korok E.V., Sumin A.N., Sinkov M.A. et al. The prevalence of intact coronary arteries in relation with indications for scheduled coronary arteriography. Russ J Cardiol 2016;2(130):52–59. DOI: 10.15829/1560-4071-2016-2-52-59. Russian (Корок Е.В., Сумин А.Н., Синьков М.А. и др. Частота выявления интактных коронарных артерий в зависимости от показаний для плановой коронарной ангиографии. Российский кардиологический журнал 2016;2(130):52–59. DOI: 10.15829/1560-4071-2016-2-52-59).

4. Patel M.R., Peterson E.D., Dai D. et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med 2010;362(10):886–895. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907272.

5. Genders T.S., Steyerberg E.W., Alkadhi H. et al. A clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: Validation, updating, and extension. Eur Heart J 2011;32:1316–1330. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr014.

6. Patel M.R., Dai D., Hernandez A.F. et al. Prevalence and predictors of nonobstructive coronary artery disease identified with coronary angiography in contemporary clinical practice. Am Heart J 2014;167(6):846–852. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2014.03.001.

7. Gaisenok O.V., Martsevich S.Yu. Determination of Indications for Coronary Angiography in Asymptomatic Patients and Patients With Stable Angina. Kardiologiia 2014;10:57–62. Russian (Гайсенок О.В., Марцевич С.Ю. Определение показаний к проведению коронарографии у пациентов без клинических проявлений заболевания и больных со стабильной стенокардией. Кардиология 2014;10:57–62).

8. Sharaf B., Wood T., Shaw L. et al. Adverse outcomes among women presenting withsigns and symptoms of ischemia and no obstructive coronary arterydisease: findings from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute sponsored Women’s Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) angiographiccore laboratory. Am Heart J 2013;166:134–141. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.04.002.

9. Neglia D., Rovai D., Caselli C. et al., EVINCI Study Investigators. Detection of significant coronaryartery disease by non-invasive anatomical and functional imaging. Circ Cardiovas Imaging 2015;8:e002179. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.114.002179.

10. Arakelyan V.S., Bortnikova N.V., Papitashvili V.G. Impact of cardiac risk factors on treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease and aortoiliac lesions. Kompleksnye problemy serdechnososudistyh zabolevanij 2013;4:77–82. Russian (Аракелян В.С., Бортникова Н.В., Папиташвили В.Г. Оценка влияния кардиальных факторов риска на тактику лечения больных с сочетанным атеросклеротическим поражением аортоподвздошного сегмента и коронарных артерий. Комплексные проблемы сердечно-сосудистых заболеваний 2013;4:77–82).

11. Barbarash L.S., Sumin A.N., Barbarash O.L., Ivanov S.V. Preoperative cardiac risk assessment and perioperative cardiac management in non-cardiac surgery. Kardiologiya 2012;5:77– 87. Russian (Барбараш Л.С., Сумин А.Н., Барбараш О.Л., Иванов С.В. Оценка и коррекция периоперационного риска сердечно-сосудистых осложнений при некардиальных операциях. Кардиология 2012;5:77–87).

12. Ivanov S.V., Sumin A.N., Kazachek Y.V. et al. Options for revascularization outcomes optimization in patients with polyvascular disease. Kompleksnye problemy serdechno-sosudistyh zabolevanij 2013;3:26–35. Russian (Иванов С.В., Сумин А.Н., Казачек Я.В. и др. Пути оптимизации результатов реваскуляризации у пациентов с мультифокальным атеросклерозом. Комплексные проблемы сердечно-сосудистых заболеваний 2013;3:26–35).

13. Sechtem U., Mahrholdt H., Ong P. et al. Testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease — The debate continues. Circ J 2016;80(4):802–810. DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-16-0220.

14. Smeeth L., Skinner J.S., Ashcroft J. et al.; Chest Pain Guideline Development Group. NICE clinical guideline: chest pain of recent onset. Br J Gen Pract 2010;60(577):607–610. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X515124.

15. ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Circulation 2009;119:e561–e587. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.192519.

16. Kuznetsov V.A., Yaroslavskaya E.I., Gorbatenko E.A. Predictors of hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis in patients with disturbed myocardial perfusion based on the results of single-photon emission computed tomography. Klinicheskaya meditsina 2012;7:25– 30. Russian (Кузнецов В.А., Ярославская Е.И., Горбатенко Е.А. Предикторы гемодинамически значимых коронарных стенозов у пациентов с нарушениями миокардиальной перфузии по данным однофотонной эмиссионной компьютерной томографии миокарда. Клиническая медицина 2012;7:25–30).

17. Miller T.D., Hodge D.O., Christian T.F. et al. Effects of adjustment for referral bias on the sensitivity and specificity of single photon emission computed tomography for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Am J Med 2002;112:290–297.

18. Yuan J.W., Wang Y.T., Lu C.Z. Coronary arteriography in the diagnosis results and prognosis analysis of suspected coronary artery disease in patients with normal SPET myocardial perfusion imaging. Hell J Nucl Med 2015;18(3):215–221.

19. Nakanishi R., Gransar H., Slomka P. et al. Predictors of high-risk coronary artery disease in subjects with normal SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2016;23(3):530–541. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-015-0150-3.

20. Schwitter J., Wacker C.M., Wilke N. et al. MR-IMPACT II: Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary artery disease Trial: perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs. single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicentre, multivendor trial. Eur Heart J 2013;34(10):775–781. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs022.

21. Greenwood J.P., Maredia N., Younger J.F. et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet 2012;379(9814):453–460. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61335-4.

22. Rahsepar A.A., Arbab-Zadeh A. Cardiac CT vs. Stress Testing in Patients with Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: Review and Expert Recommendations. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep 2015;8(8). pii: 29. DOI:10.1007/s12410-015-9344-y.

23. Tashakkor A.Y., Stone J., Mancini G.B. Is it Time to Update How Suspected Angina Is Evaluated prior to the Use of Specialized Tests Implications Based on a Systematic Review. Cardiology 2016;133(3):181–190. DOI: 10.1159/000441562.