Cardiovascular risk factors and development of nomograms in an Italian cohort of patients with suspected coronary artery disease undergoing SPECT or PET stress myocardial perfusion imaging
Rosario Megna,Mario Petretta,Carmela Nappi,Roberta Assante,Emilia Zampella,Valeria Gaudieri,Teresa Mannarino,Adriana D'Antonio,Roberta Green,Valeria Cantoni,Mariarosaria Panico,Wanda Acampa,Alberto Cuocolo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnume.2024.1232135
2024-02-14
Abstract:Introduction: Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET) are non-invasive nuclear medicine techniques that can identify areas of abnormal myocardial perfusion. We assessed the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing SPECT or PET stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). Based on significant risk factors associated with an abnormal MPI, we developed a nomogram for each cohort as a pretest that would be helpful in decision-making for clinicians. Methods: A total of 6,854 patients with suspected CAD who underwent stress myocardial perfusion imaging by SPECT or PET/CT was studied. As part of the baseline examination, clinical teams collected information on traditional cardiovascular risk factors: age, gender, body mass index, angina, dyspnea, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, family history of CAD, and smoking. Results: The prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors was different in the two cohorts of patients undergoing SPECT (n = 4,397) or PET (n = 2,457) myocardial perfusion imaging. A statistical significance was observed in both cohorts for age, gender, and diabetes. At multivariable analysis, only age and male gender were significant covariates in both cohorts. The risk of abnormal myocardial perfusion imaging related to age was greater in patients undergoing PET (odds ratio 4% vs. 1% per year). In contrast, male gender odds ratio was slightly higher for SPECT compared to PET (2.52 vs. 2.06). In the SPECT cohort, smoking increased the risk of abnormal perfusion of 24%. Among patients undergoing PET, diabetes and hypertension increased the risk of abnormal perfusion by 63% and 37%, respectively. For each cohort, we obtained a nomogram by significant risk factors at multivariable logistic regression. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve associated with the nomogram was 0.67 for SPECT and 0.73 for the PET model. Conclusions: Patients with suspected CAD belonging to two different cohorts undergoing SPECT or PET stress myocardial perfusion imaging can have different cardiovascular risk factors associated with a higher risk of an abnormal MPI study. As crude variables, age, gender, and diabetes were significant for both cohorts. Net of the effect of other covariates, age and gender were the only risk factors in common between the two cohorts. Furthermore, smoking and type of stress test were significant for the SPECT cohort, where as diabetes and hypertension were significant for the PET cohort. Nomograms obtained by significant risk factors for the two cohorts can be used by clinicians to evaluate the risk of an abnormal study.