Davi Shunji Yahiro, Luís Felipe Leite, Giovane L Azevedo, Mouaz H Al-Mallah, Claudio Tinoco Mesquita
{"title":"Comparison of PET-CT and CZT-SPECT on myocardial blood flow and flow reserve measurement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Davi Shunji Yahiro, Luís Felipe Leite, Giovane L Azevedo, Mouaz H Al-Mallah, Claudio Tinoco Mesquita","doi":"10.1016/j.nuclcard.2025.102279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) measurement is crucial for diagnosing and managing coronary artery disease and microvascular dysfunction. While positron emission tomography (PET) is the gold standard, cadmium zinc telluride (CZT) is more accessible. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare the accuracy, and the systematic bias of MBF and MFR measurement using CZT compared with PET.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review across multiple databases up to April 2024. The main outcomes were mean difference between MBF and MFR values obtained from PET and CZT, limits of agreement, and diagnostic performance. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool and statistical analysis was conducted using random effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies, encompassing 268 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The mean difference for rest and stress myocardial blood flow between PET and CZT was .006 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -.088, .100) and .111 (95% CI: -.418, .195), respectively. The myocardial flow reserve mean difference was .0178 (95% CI: -.492, .135). Bland-Altman meta-analysis demonstrated a bias of .05 mL/min/g (95%CI: -1.08 to 1.24) for rest MBF, .13 mL/min/g for stress MBF (95%CI: -.969 to 1.228), and .03 mL/min/g (95%CI: -.999, 1.006) bias for MFR. The diagnostic performance for detecting significant reductions in MBF and MFR on single-photon emission computed tomography using PET as the gold standard demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 80.8% and 87.0%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CZT MBF measurements demonstrated good agreement with PET, although they had a slight underestimation. While PET remains the preferred modality due to its superior performance, CZT represents a viable alternative when PET is unavailable. Future research should focus on standardizing CZT protocols.</p>","PeriodicalId":16476,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nuclear Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":"102279"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nuclear Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclcard.2025.102279","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) measurement is crucial for diagnosing and managing coronary artery disease and microvascular dysfunction. While positron emission tomography (PET) is the gold standard, cadmium zinc telluride (CZT) is more accessible. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare the accuracy, and the systematic bias of MBF and MFR measurement using CZT compared with PET.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review across multiple databases up to April 2024. The main outcomes were mean difference between MBF and MFR values obtained from PET and CZT, limits of agreement, and diagnostic performance. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool and statistical analysis was conducted using random effects models.
Results: Eight studies, encompassing 268 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The mean difference for rest and stress myocardial blood flow between PET and CZT was .006 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -.088, .100) and .111 (95% CI: -.418, .195), respectively. The myocardial flow reserve mean difference was .0178 (95% CI: -.492, .135). Bland-Altman meta-analysis demonstrated a bias of .05 mL/min/g (95%CI: -1.08 to 1.24) for rest MBF, .13 mL/min/g for stress MBF (95%CI: -.969 to 1.228), and .03 mL/min/g (95%CI: -.999, 1.006) bias for MFR. The diagnostic performance for detecting significant reductions in MBF and MFR on single-photon emission computed tomography using PET as the gold standard demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 80.8% and 87.0%, respectively.
Conclusions: CZT MBF measurements demonstrated good agreement with PET, although they had a slight underestimation. While PET remains the preferred modality due to its superior performance, CZT represents a viable alternative when PET is unavailable. Future research should focus on standardizing CZT protocols.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology is the only journal in the world devoted to this dynamic and growing subspecialty. Physicians and technologists value the Journal not only for its peer-reviewed articles, but also for its timely discussions about the current and future role of nuclear cardiology. Original articles address all aspects of nuclear cardiology, including interpretation, diagnosis, imaging equipment, and use of radiopharmaceuticals. As the official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the Journal also brings readers the latest information emerging from the Society''s task forces and publishes guidelines and position papers as they are adopted.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
