Table 1

Table 1 - PATIENT EXAMS INTERPRETATIONS AND SCORING

PID	MPR	MPR Findings	NM Findings	Cath Findings
DLF	TP	Fixed inf & antero-apical defects. Possible lateral ischemia (unprotected diag area)	Fixed inferior defect	Patent SVG beyond 100% RCA. Patent LIMA beyond 90% mid LAD. Circ and Ramus 40% with SVG to Ramus. Large unprotected Diagonal 70%.
GEM	TP	Large anterior & apical perf defect. ? Mid-posterior defect w/ no correlation	Post CABG: antero-septal & apical ischemia & infarction	Pre CABG: 90% LAD, 60% Circ Post CABG: MI; patient refused cath
HPM	FP	Inf & lateral MPR defects. Note: only 9 min wait time; poor rest bolus response. Note: FP for MPR based	Interpreted as ant ischemia. ?Fixed attenuation defects. Note: FP for NM based on cath	RCA 60% with Patent SVG. LAD 80-90% with Patent LIMA.
EP	TP	Antero-lateral Ischemia	Antero-lateral ischemia	Patient refused
VWR	TP	Lateral and infero-lateral defects	Infero-lateral ischemia	Severe native CAD. Grafts patent but inf-lat area supplied by sequential distal SVG.
SHT	TP	Mid-inf & posterior-lateral perfusion abnormalities. Scattered low-MPR areas. Previous infarction.	Antero-apical and basilar lateral fixed defects c/w infarcts	No post CABG cath
MM	TP	Infero-posterior ischemia	Infero-posterior ischemia	Occluded RCA w/ retrograde filling via collaterals. OM1 95%.
TP	TN	Normal	Fixed posterior defect judged as a FP	No cath. Echocardiography normal. MR wall motion and global function measurements normal.
GEH	FP	Inferior-septal MPR ~1.1	Not performed	Circumflex stent placed 3 months prior w/ good result. 30% LAD stenosis.
AMF	TN	Normal	Interpreted as anterior/apical ischemia, but FP for NM based on cath.	Patent stents with 30%-40% dia. Narrowing.
LB	TN	Normal	Normal	Patient refused
BP	TN	Normal	Normal	Patient refused
DPC	TP	Abnormal MPR in multiple areas	Antero-apical ischemia	Stenoses: 90% LAD, 50% Circ, 60%-70% RCA
JAE	TP	Small posterior infarct, non-transmural scarring	Normal cardiolite 5/2001	Known CAD with MI & PTCA 1988.
KK	TN	Normal	Normal	Patient refused

13/15 patients were correctly classified by the MPR imaging. One exam (PID HPM) was scored as a false positive for both MPR and nuclear medicine given the insistence of the performing cardiologist that the catheter angio exam was normal. Other MPR false-positive patient (PID GEH) had a circumflex stent and 30% LAD stenosis, and an MPR region measuring ~1.1.