sysadmin
July 2nd, 2004, 07:11
This study of 1,818 consecutive patients did not find any differences in the diagnostic utility of sestamibi versus tetrofosmin in myocardial perfusion scanning. COMMENT: this study is a bit tainted because it was sponsored in part by a grant from the maker of tetrofosmin (Amersham).
Outcome Prediction in Patients at High Risk for Coronary Artery Disease: Comparison between 99mTc Tetrofosmin and 99mTc Sestamibi
Salvador Borges-Neto, MD, Robert H. Tuttle, MS, Linda K. Shaw, MS, William T. Smith, IV, MD, Diwakar Jain, MD, R. Edward Coleman, MD and David Whellan, MD
1 From the Departments of Medicine (Cardiology) (S.B.N., R.H.T., L.K.S., W.T.S., D.W.) and Radiology (Nuclear Medicine) (S.B.N., R.E.C.) and Duke Clinical Research Institute and Drexel School of Medicine (Cardiology) (D.J.), Duke University Medical Center, PO Box 3949, Durham, NC 27710. Received February 13, 2003; revision requested May 7; revision received October 9; accepted November 12. This study was supported in part by an unrestricted grant from Amersham Health. Address correspondence to S.B.N. (e-mail: borge001@mc.duke.edu).
Radiology 2004;232:58-65
http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/abstract/232/1/58
Outcome Prediction in Patients at High Risk for Coronary Artery Disease: Comparison between 99mTc Tetrofosmin and 99mTc Sestamibi
Salvador Borges-Neto, MD, Robert H. Tuttle, MS, Linda K. Shaw, MS, William T. Smith, IV, MD, Diwakar Jain, MD, R. Edward Coleman, MD and David Whellan, MD
1 From the Departments of Medicine (Cardiology) (S.B.N., R.H.T., L.K.S., W.T.S., D.W.) and Radiology (Nuclear Medicine) (S.B.N., R.E.C.) and Duke Clinical Research Institute and Drexel School of Medicine (Cardiology) (D.J.), Duke University Medical Center, PO Box 3949, Durham, NC 27710. Received February 13, 2003; revision requested May 7; revision received October 9; accepted November 12. This study was supported in part by an unrestricted grant from Amersham Health. Address correspondence to S.B.N. (e-mail: borge001@mc.duke.edu).
Radiology 2004;232:58-65
http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/abstract/232/1/58