SPECT myocardial perfusion versus fractional flow reserve for evaluation of functional ischemia: a meta analysis

Eur J Radiol. 2014 Jun;83(6):951-956. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.02.018. Epub 2014 Mar 3.

Abstract

Purpose: The present meta-analysis illustrates the accuracy of myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) to diagnose functional stenotic coronary artery disease (CAD) with fractional flow reserve (FFR) as standard reference.

Methods: All investigators screened and selected studies that compared MPS with FFR in symptomatic patients with suspected CAD. Patients and study characteristics were independently extracted by two investigators; differences were resolved by consensus.

Results: 13 articles, including 1,017 patients, 699 vessels were included in the study. No significant publication bias was detected (P=0.65). At the patient level, the summary sensitivity and specificity were 77% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70-83%) and 77% (95%CI, 67-84%) for MPS. Vessel-level pooled sensitivity was 66% (95%CI, 57-74%) and specificity was 81% (95%CI, 70-89%). The overall diagnostic performance of MPS was moderate. [The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve was 0.83]. No study influenced the pooled results larger than 0.03.

Conclusions: The accuracy between FFR and MPS SPECT was moderate.

Keywords: Coronary artery disease; Fractional flow reserve; Myocardial perfusion SPECT; Quantitative coronary angiography.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Meta-Analysis
  • Review

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Cardiac-Gated Single-Photon Emission Computer-Assisted Tomography / statistics & numerical data*
  • Causality
  • Comorbidity
  • Coronary Angiography / statistics & numerical data
  • Coronary Artery Disease / diagnosis*
  • Coronary Artery Disease / epidemiology*
  • Female
  • Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial*
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Myocardial Ischemia / diagnosis*
  • Myocardial Ischemia / epidemiology*
  • Myocardial Perfusion Imaging / statistics & numerical data*
  • Prevalence
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Risk Factors
  • Sensitivity and Specificity