Diagnosis of extensive coronary artery disease: intrinisic value of increased lung 201 T1 uptake with exercise SPECT.

Exercise lung 201 TI uptake calculated with planar imaging has an important diagnostic and prognostic value in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, its value with SPECT imaging raises methodological concerns and is controversial. We studied its value for the discrimination between extensive (E) and limited (L) angiographic CAD with exercise SPECT. METHODS: Four methods of lung-to-heart ratio quantification were calculated in patients with a low likelihood (< 5%) of CAD (n = 62). Their dependent variables were defined, and corresponding correction equations were derived. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed in a pilot group (L-CAD, n = 49; E-CAD, n = 126) to define the optimal method of calculation of the lung-to-heart ratio. Its best threshold providing the best sensitivity for a specificity of 90% was defined. After correction for dependent variables, the 4 methods were also compared by ROC analysis and the optimal corrected method was compared with the optimal uncorrected method using ROC analysis and the best threshold. The consistency of these results in the validation group (L-CAD, n = 41; E-CAD, n = 122) and of the results of visual analysis of lung 201TI uptake were then verified. RESULTS: On ROC analysis in the pilot group, the optimal method of calculation of the lung-to-heart ratio was the mean activity in a region of interest drawn at the base of the lungs to the mean activity over the heart (Lb/H). For the best threshold, Lb/H presented a sensitivity of 34%. Corrected Lb/H still remained the best method of calculation on ROC analysis compared with the other corrected methods. On ROC analysis, there was no difference between corrected and uncorrected Lb/H. For the best threshold, corrected Lb/H presented a similar sensitivity of 37% compared with uncorrected Lb/H. When applied to the validation group (L-CAD, n = 41; E-CAD, n = 122), the best-defined threshold in the pilot group for corrected Lb/H presented a diagnostic value similar to that in the pilot group (sensitivity, 41%; specificity, 90%), but uncorrected Lb/H presented a higher sensitivity (47%; P < 0.04) and a slightly lower specificity (80%). Results of lung 201TI uptake visual analysis were inconsistent between pilot and validation groups (42% versus 58% sensitivity, P = 0.012; 86% versus 66% specificity, P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: For evaluation of E-CAD versus L-CAD, quantification of the exercise lung-to-heart 201TI uptake ratio with SPECT is feasible, reproducible, more discriminate than simple visual analysis, and best calculated as Lb/H. It presents an intrinsic diagnostic value even after correction for other clinically valuable dependent variables.