English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Quantitative analysis of myocardial exercise scintigraphy has been previously reported to be superior to visual image interpretation for detection of the presence and extent of coronary artery disease. Computer analysis of perfusion defects and washout rate of thallium 201 was performed on scintigrams from a group of 131 consecutive patients (prospective group), using criteria defined from a previous group of 72 patients (initial group), and compared with visual interpretation of scintigrams for detection and evaluation of coronary artery disease. The sensitivity of the quantitative technique with regard to overall detection of coronary artery disease was not significantly different from the visual method (69% and 74%, respectively), whereas the specificity was higher (86% and 68%). Quantitative analysis did not increase the sensitivity of thallium imaging over the visual method in the left anterior descending artery (46% vs 65%) and the right coronary artery (51% vs 72%) but did increase sensitivity in the left circumflex artery (75% vs 47%). Whereas in the initial group quantitative analysis resulted in a better identification of multivessel disease (sensitivity 81% vs 57%), in the prospective group sensitivity decreased (54% vs 67%) without significant loss of specificity. The initial group had a 40% incidence of three-vessel disease and the prospective group, 22% (P less than 0.05). One-vessel disease was higher in the prospective group (32% vs 11%, P less than 0.05). Thus, assessing the quantitative technique in a larger prospective patient population, there was no improvement of detection of the presence and extent of coronary artery disease when compared with visual interpretation.

european journal of nuclear medicine

Is quantitative analysis superior to visual analysis of planar thallium 201 myocardial exercise scintigraphy in the evaluation of coronary artery disease?