OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to test the ability of reinjection thallium-201 and rest technetium-99m sestamibi ECG (electrocardiographic)-gated SPECT (i.e., reinjection-g-SPECT [single-photon emission computed tomography] and MIBI-g-SPECT) to determine regional and global functional parameters. BACKGROUND: The ECG-gated perfusion SPECT was reported to provide accurate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) using an automated algorithm. We hypothesized that other various functional data may be obtained using reinjection-g-SPECT and MIBI-g-SPECT. METHODS: Reinjection-g-SPECT, MIBI-g-SPECT, and three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (3DMRI) were conducted in 20 patients with coronary artery disease. Regional wall motion (RWM) and wall thickening (RWT) were analyzed using semiquantitative visual scoring by each g-SPECT and 3DMRI. The left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes (EDV, ESV) and LVEF estimated by reinjection- and MIBI-g-SPECT were compared with the results of 3DMRI. RESULTS: A high degree of agreement in RWM and RWT assessment was observed between each g-SPECT and 3DMRI (kappa >.70, p < .001). The LVEF values by reinjection- and MIBI-g-SPECT correlated and agreed well with those by 3DMRI (reinjection: r = .92, SEE = 5.9%, SD of differences = 5.7%; sestamibi: r = .94, SEE = 4.4%, SD of differences = 5.1%). The same also pertained to EDV (reinjection: r = .85, SEE = 18.7 ml, SD of differences = 18.4 ml; sestamibi: r = .92, SEE = 13.1 ml, SD of differences = 13.0 ml) and ESV (reinjection: r = .94, SEE = 10.3 ml, SD of differences = 10.3 ml; sestamibi: r = .97, SEE = 6.7 ml [p < .05 vs. reinjection by F test], SD of differences = 6.6 ml [p < .05 vs. reinjection by F test]). CONCLUSIONS: Reinjection- and MIBI-g-SPECT provide clinically satisfactory various functional data. These functional data in combination with the perfusion information will improve diagnostic and prognostic accuracy without an increase in cost or the radiation dose to the patients.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to test the ability of reinjection thallium-201 and rest technetium-99m sestamibi ECG (electrocardiographic)-gated SPECT (i.e., reinjection-g-SPECT [single-photon emission computed tomography] and MIBI-g-SPECT) to determine regional and global functional parameters. BACKGROUND: The ECG-gated perfusion SPECT was reported to provide accurate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) using an automated algorithm. We hypothesized that other various functional data may be obtained using reinjection-g-SPECT and MIBI-g-SPECT. METHODS: Reinjection-g-SPECT, MIBI-g-SPECT, and three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (3DMRI) were conducted in 20 patients with coronary artery disease. Regional wall motion (RWM) and wall thickening (RWT) were analyzed using semiquantitative visual scoring by each g-SPECT and 3DMRI. The left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes (EDV, ESV) and LVEF estimated by reinjection- and MIBI-g-SPECT were compared with the results of 3DMRI. RESULTS: A high degree of agreement in RWM and RWT assessment was observed between each g-SPECT and 3DMRI (kappa >.70, p < .001). The LVEF values by reinjection- and MIBI-g-SPECT correlated and agreed well with those by 3DMRI (reinjection: r = .92, SEE = 5.9%, SD of differences = 5.7%; sestamibi: r = .94, SEE = 4.4%, SD of differences = 5.1%). The same also pertained to EDV (reinjection: r = .85, SEE = 18.7 ml, SD of differences = 18.4 ml; sestamibi: r = .92, SEE = 13.1 ml, SD of differences = 13.0 ml) and ESV (reinjection: r = .94, SEE = 10.3 ml, SD of differences = 10.3 ml; sestamibi: r = .97, SEE = 6.7 ml [p < .05 vs. reinjection by F test], SD of differences = 6.6 ml [p < .05 vs. reinjection by F test]). CONCLUSIONS: Reinjection- and MIBI-g-SPECT provide clinically satisfactory various functional data. These functional data in combination with the perfusion information will improve diagnostic and prognostic accuracy without an increase in cost or the radiation dose to the patients.
Authors: T L Faber; J P Vansant; R I Pettigrew; J R Galt; M Blais; G Chatzimavroudis; C D Cooke; R D Folks; S M Waldrop; E Gurtler-Krawczynska; M D Wittry; E V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2001 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Claudia S A Lipke; Harald P Kühl; Bernd Nowak; Hans-Juergen Kaiser; Patrick Reinartz; Karl-Christian Koch; Udalrich Buell; Wolfgang M Schaefer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-01-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: B Hesse; K Tägil; A Cuocolo; C Anagnostopoulos; M Bardiés; J Bax; F Bengel; E Busemann Sokole; G Davies; M Dondi; L Edenbrandt; P Franken; A Kjaer; J Knuuti; M Lassmann; M Ljungberg; C Marcassa; P Y Marie; F McKiddie; M O'Connor; E Prvulovich; R Underwood; B van Eck-Smit Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Guido Germano; Paul B Kavanagh; Piotr J Slomka; Serge D Van Kriekinge; Geoff Pollard; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Bernard Cosyns; David Haberman; Steven Droogmans; Sandrine Warzée; Philippe Mahieu; Eric Laurent; Marie Moonen; Sophie Hernot; Patrizio Lancellotti Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Date: 2009-06-16 Impact factor: 2.062