+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Comparison of Rest/Exercise ECG, Thallium-201 Scans and Radionuclide Angiography in Patients with Suspected Coronary Artery Disease

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          The results of rest and exercise ECG, <sup>201</sup>Tl myocardial perfusion imaging and equilibrium radionuclide angiography were analyzed in 71 consecutive patients reffered for diagnosis or evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD). In 45 patients the diagnosis was established either by catheterization or typical history. In this group the overall sensitivity for rest/exercise ECG was 66%, for <sup>201</sup>Tl scans 74%, for both combined 79% and for the ejection fraction response to exercise determined by radionuclide angiography 97%. If only the exercise response was considered, the corresponding sensitivity values were 58% (ECG), 50% (<sup>201</sup>Tl scans), 71% (ECG + <sup>201</sup>Tl) and 97% (radionuclide angiography). The specificity for coronary artery disease was determined to be 71% for ECG, 86% for <sup>201</sup>Tl scans and 42% for radionuclide angiography. All patients with false-positive results by radionuclide angiography had cardiomyopathies, thus this test has a high specificity for left ventricular dysfunction rather than for CAD alone. Criteria developed from the analysis of the test results in the 45 patients with definite diagnoses were then applied to the evaluation of 26 additional patients with atypical chest pain. A diagnosis could be made in all but 5 of them and radionuclide angiography was again the single most reliable test. Based on this study a new approach for the noninvasive evaluation of patients with suspected coronary artery disease is proposed.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          S. Karger AG
          31 October 2008
          : 66
          : 1
          : 43-55
          Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, and Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California Medical Center, San Diego, Calif.
          170849 Cardiology 1980;66:43–55
          © 1980 S. Karger AG, Basel

          Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

          Page count
          Pages: 13
          Original Paper


          Comment on this article