5-Year Prognostic Value of Quantitative Versus Visual MPI in Subtle Perfusion Defects: Results From REFINE SPECT.

OBJECTIVES This study compared the ability of automated myocardial perfusion imaging analysis to predict major adverse cardiac events (MACE) to that of visual analysis. BACKGROUND Quantitative analysis has not been compared with clinical visual analysis in prognostic studies. METHODS A total of 19,495 patients from the multicenter REFINE SPECT (REgistry of Fast Myocardial Perfusion Imaging with NExt generation SPECT) study (64 ± 12 years of age, 56% males) undergoing stress Tc-99m-labeled single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging were followed for 4.5 ± 1.7 years for MACE. Perfusion abnormalities were assessed visually and categorized as normal, probably normal, equivocal, or abnormal. Stress total perfusion deficit (TPD), quantified automatically, was categorized as TPD = 0%, TPD >0% to <1%, ≤1% to <3%, ≤3% to <5%, ≤5% to ≤10%, or TPD >10%. MACE consisted of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or late revascularization (>90 days). Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses were performed to test the performance of visual and quantitative assessments in predicting MACE. RESULTS During follow-up examinations, 2,760 (14.2%) MACE occurred. MACE rates increased with worsening of visual assessments, that is, the rate for normal MACE was 2.0%, 3.2% for probably normal, 4.2% for equivocal, and 7.4% for abnormal (all p < 0.001). MACE rates increased with increasing stress TPD from 1.3% for the TPD category of 0% to 7.8% for the TPD category of >10% (p < 0.0001). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for MACE increased even in equivocal assessment (HR: 1.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.37 to 1.78) and in the TPD category of ≤3% to <5% (HR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.41 to 2.14; all p < 0.001). The rate of MACE in patients visually assessed as normal still increased from 1.3% (TPD = 0%) to 3.4% (TPD ≥5%) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Quantitative analysis allows precise granular risk stratification in comparison to visual reading, even for cases with normal clinical reading.