Advanced search
1 file | 322.08 KB

Model dependence of gated blood pool SPECT ventricular function measurements

(2004) JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY. 11(3). p.282-292
Author
Organization
Abstract
Background. Calculation differences between various gated blood pool (GBP) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (GBPS) algorithms may arise as a result of different modeling assumptions. Little information has been available thus far regarding differences for right ventricular (RV) function calculations, for which GBPS may be uniquely well suited. Methods and Results. Measurements of QBS (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif) and BP-SPECT (Columbia University, New York, NY) algorithms were evaluated. QBS and BP-SPECT left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) correlated strongly with conventional planar-GBP LVEF for 422 patients (r = 0.81 vs r = 0.83). QBS correlated significantly more strongly with BP-SPECT for LVEF than for RVEF (r = 0.80 vs r = 0.41). Both algorithms demonstrated significant gender differences for 31 normal subjects. BP-SPECT normal LVEF (67% +/- 9%) was significantly closer to values in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) literature (68% +/- 5%) than QBS (58% +/- 9%), but both algorithms underestimated normal RVEF (52% +/- 7% and 50% +/- 9%) compared with the MRI literature (64% +/- 9%). For 21 patients, QBS correlated similarly to MRI as BP-SPECT for LVEF (r = 0.80 vs r = 0.85) but RVEF correlation was significantly weaker (r = 0.47 vs r = 0.81). For 16 dynamic phantom simulations, QBS LVEF correlated similarly to BP-SPECT (r = 0.81 vs r = 0.91) but QBS RVEF correlation was significantly weaker (r = 0.62 vs r = 0.82). Volumes were lower by QBS than BP-SPECT for all data types. Conclusions. Both algorithms produced LV parameters that correlated strongly with all forms of image data, but all QBS RV relationships were significantly different from BP-SPECT RV relationships. Differences between the two algorithms were attributed to differences in their underlying ventricular modeling assumptions.
Keywords
VOLUME, VALIDATION, NORMAL LIMITS, EJECTION FRACTION, AUTOMATIC QUANTIFICATION, MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION SPECT, gated blood pool single photon emission computed tomography, normal limits, count-threshold methods, gradient methods, PLANAR, TOMOGRAPHY, PHANTOM, GENDER

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 322.08 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

Chicago
Nichols, Kenneth, Naeem Humayun, Pieter De Bondt, Stijn Vandenberghe, Olakunle O Akinboboye, and Steven R Bergmann. 2004. “Model Dependence of Gated Blood Pool SPECT Ventricular Function Measurements.” Journal of Nuclear Cardiology 11 (3): 282–292.
APA
Nichols, K., Humayun, N., De Bondt, P., Vandenberghe, S., Akinboboye, O. O., & Bergmann, S. R. (2004). Model dependence of gated blood pool SPECT ventricular function measurements. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY, 11(3), 282–292.
Vancouver
1.
Nichols K, Humayun N, De Bondt P, Vandenberghe S, Akinboboye OO, Bergmann SR. Model dependence of gated blood pool SPECT ventricular function measurements. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY. 2004;11(3):282–92.
MLA
Nichols, Kenneth, Naeem Humayun, Pieter De Bondt, et al. “Model Dependence of Gated Blood Pool SPECT Ventricular Function Measurements.” JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY 11.3 (2004): 282–292. Print.
@article{2065122,
  abstract     = {Background. Calculation differences between various gated blood pool (GBP) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (GBPS) algorithms may arise as a result of different modeling assumptions. Little information has been available thus far regarding differences for right ventricular (RV) function calculations, for which GBPS may be uniquely well suited. 
Methods and Results. Measurements of QBS (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif) and BP-SPECT (Columbia University, New York, NY) algorithms were evaluated. QBS and BP-SPECT left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) correlated strongly with conventional planar-GBP LVEF for 422 patients (r = 0.81 vs r = 0.83). QBS correlated significantly more strongly with BP-SPECT for LVEF than for RVEF (r = 0.80 vs r = 0.41). Both algorithms demonstrated significant gender differences for 31 normal subjects. BP-SPECT normal LVEF (67\% +/- 9\%) was significantly closer to values in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) literature (68\% +/- 5\%) than QBS (58\% +/- 9\%), but both algorithms underestimated normal RVEF (52\% +/- 7\% and 50\% +/- 9\%) compared with the MRI literature (64\% +/- 9\%). For 21 patients, QBS correlated similarly to MRI as BP-SPECT for LVEF (r = 0.80 vs r = 0.85) but RVEF correlation was significantly weaker (r = 0.47 vs r = 0.81). For 16 dynamic phantom simulations, QBS LVEF correlated similarly to BP-SPECT (r = 0.81 vs r = 0.91) but QBS RVEF correlation was significantly weaker (r = 0.62 vs r = 0.82). Volumes were lower by QBS than BP-SPECT for all data types. 
Conclusions. Both algorithms produced LV parameters that correlated strongly with all forms of image data, but all QBS RV relationships were significantly different from BP-SPECT RV relationships. Differences between the two algorithms were attributed to differences in their underlying ventricular modeling assumptions.},
  author       = {Nichols, Kenneth and Humayun, Naeem and De Bondt, Pieter and Vandenberghe, Stijn and Akinboboye, Olakunle O and Bergmann, Steven R},
  issn         = {1071-3581},
  journal      = {JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY},
  keyword      = {VOLUME,VALIDATION,NORMAL LIMITS,EJECTION FRACTION,AUTOMATIC QUANTIFICATION,MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION SPECT,gated blood pool single photon emission computed tomography,normal limits,count-threshold methods,gradient methods,PLANAR,TOMOGRAPHY,PHANTOM,GENDER},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {3},
  pages        = {282--292},
  title        = {Model dependence of gated blood pool SPECT ventricular function measurements},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclcard.2004.01.007},
  volume       = {11},
  year         = {2004},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: