Gender differences in the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: a bivariate meta-analysis.

Aline Iskandar, Brendan Limone, Matthew W Parker, Andrew Perugini, Hyejin Kim, Charles Jones, Brian Calamari, Craig I Coleman, Gary V Heller
Author Information
  1. Aline Iskandar: Department of Medicine, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA. aline_iskandar@yahoo.com

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It remains controversial whether the diagnostic accuracy of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI) is different in men as compared to women. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate gender differences of SPECT MPI for the diagnosis of CAD (≥50% stenosis).
METHOD: Two investigators independently performed a systematic review of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception through January 2012 for English-language studies determining the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT MPI. We included prospective studies that compared SPECT MPI with conventional coronary angiography which provided sufficient data to calculate gender-specific true and false positives and negatives. Data from studies evaluating <20 patients of one gender were excluded. Bivariate meta-analysis was used to create summary receiver operating curves.
RESULTS: Twenty-six studies met inclusion criteria, representing 1,148 women and 1,142 men. Bivariate meta-analysis yielded a mean sensitivity and specificity of 84.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 78.7%-88.6%) and 78.7% (CI 70.0%-85.3%) for SPECT MPI in women and 89.1% (CI 84.0%-92.7%) and 71.2% (CI 60.8%-79.8%) for SPECT MPI in men. There was no significant difference in the sensitivity (P = .15) or specificity (P = .23) between male and female subjects.
CONCLUSION: In a bivariate meta-analysis of the available literature, the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT MPI is similar for both men and women.

References

  1. Am J Med. 1988 Apr;84(4):699-710 [PMID: 3041808]
  2. Chest. 1998 Oct;114(4):1097-104 [PMID: 9792583]
  3. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Feb 7;47(3 Suppl):S4-S20 [PMID: 16458170]
  4. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Jan;29(1):69-77 [PMID: 8996297]
  5. Coron Artery Dis. 2008 Sep;19(6):399-404 [PMID: 18955833]
  6. J Nucl Med. 1992 Aug;33(8):1509-15 [PMID: 1634943]
  7. J Nucl Cardiol. 1998 May-Jun;5(3):265-74 [PMID: 9669581]
  8. J Nucl Med. 1998 May;39(5):751-5 [PMID: 9591568]
  9. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Feb 7;47(3 Suppl):S36-43 [PMID: 16458169]
  10. Am J Cardiol. 2010 May 1;105(9):1254-60 [PMID: 20403475]
  11. Circulation. 2010 Dec 14;122(24):2570-80 [PMID: 21156655]
  12. Pharmacotherapy. 1996 Jul-Aug;16(4):646-51 [PMID: 8840371]
  13. Am J Cardiol. 1999 Mar 1;83(5):660-6 [PMID: 10080415]
  14. Am Heart J. 1998 Apr;135(4):655-62 [PMID: 9539482]
  15. J Formos Med Assoc. 2007 Oct;106(10):832-9 [PMID: 17964962]
  16. J Nucl Med. 1994 Apr;35(4):609-18 [PMID: 8151383]
  17. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996 Mar 15;27(4):803-9 [PMID: 8613606]
  18. J Nucl Med. 1997 Jul;38(7):1089-94 [PMID: 9225796]
  19. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008 Jul;1(4):446-9 [PMID: 19356465]
  20. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2003 May;(81):1-4 [PMID: 12813858]
  21. J Interv Cardiol. 2001 Jun;14(3):271-82 [PMID: 12053386]
  22. Clin Cardiol. 2002 Dec;25(12):559-64 [PMID: 12492125]
  23. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989 Dec;14(7):1689-99 [PMID: 2584558]
  24. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2007 Nov;89(5):263-9, 290-7 [PMID: 18066448]
  25. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36 [PMID: 22007046]
  26. Am Heart J. 1990 Dec;120(6 Pt 1):1255-66 [PMID: 2248175]
  27. Nucl Med Commun. 1992 Dec;13(12):871-8 [PMID: 1465270]
  28. Coron Artery Dis. 1996 Nov;7(11):831-5 [PMID: 8993941]
  29. Circulation. 2003 Sep 16;108(11):1404-18 [PMID: 12975245]
  30. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006 Sep;13(5):629-34 [PMID: 16945742]
  31. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Nov;5(6):700-7 [PMID: 23051888]
  32. Am J Cardiol. 2007 Apr 15;99(8):1096-9 [PMID: 17437734]
  33. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996 Nov 1;28(5):1214-9 [PMID: 8890818]
  34. J Nucl Cardiol. 2003 Jan-Feb;10(1):95-101 [PMID: 12569338]
  35. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2009 Jul;19(7):406-9 [PMID: 19576145]
  36. Int J Card Imaging. 1996 Jun;12(2):113-8 [PMID: 8864790]
  37. J Nucl Cardiol. 1999 Mar-Apr;6(2):169-76 [PMID: 10327101]
  38. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003 Nov 10;3:25 [PMID: 14606960]
  39. Circulation. 2005 Feb 8;111(5):682-96 [PMID: 15687114]
  40. Int J Card Imaging. 1995 Jun;11(2):127-37 [PMID: 7673760]
  41. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Sep;62(9):974-81 [PMID: 19230607]

MeSH Term

Analysis of Variance
Constriction, Pathologic
Coronary Angiography
False Positive Reactions
Female
Humans
Male
Myocardial Perfusion Imaging
Predictive Value of Tests
ROC Curve
Reproducibility of Results
Research Design
Sensitivity and Specificity
Sex Factors
Technetium
Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon

Chemicals

Technetium

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0SPECTMPImeta-analysisdiagnosticaccuracymenwomenstudiesCImyocardialperfusioncomparedperformedgenderdifferencesBivariate1sensitivityspecificity842%787%P=bivariateBACKGROUND:remainscontroversialwhethersingle-photonemissioncomputedtomographyimagingdifferentinvestigatediagnosisCAD≥50%stenosisMETHOD:TwoinvestigatorsindependentlysystematicreviewMEDLINEEMBASEdatabasesinceptionJanuary2012English-languagedeterminingincludedprospectiveconventionalcoronaryangiographyprovidedsufficientdatacalculategender-specifictruefalsepositivesnegativesDataevaluating<20patientsoneexcludedusedcreatesummaryreceiveroperatingcurvesRESULTS:Twenty-sixmetinclusioncriteriarepresenting148142yieldedmean95%confidenceinterval[CI]7%-886%700%-853%891%0%-9271608%-798%significantdifference1523malefemalesubjectsCONCLUSION:availableliteraturesimilarGenderimaging:

Similar Articles

Cited By