UNLABELLED: We compared the left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV) and ejection fraction (LVEF) as calculated by Cedars automated quantitative gated SPECT (QGS) to those determined by first-pass radionuclide angiography (FPRNA) and contrast left ventriculography (LVG) in a group of 21 patients (mean age 61.4 +/- 9.2 y). METHODS: A total of 740 MBq 99mTc-tetrofosmin was administered rapidly into the right cubital vein at rest, and FPRNA was performed using a multicrystal gamma camera. One hour after injection, QGS was performed with a temporal resolution of 10 frames per R-R interval. LVG was performed within 2 wk. RESULTS: The EDV, ESV and LVEF calculated by QGS were highly reproducible (intraobserver, r = 0.99, r = 0.99 and r = 0.99, respectively; interobserver, r = 0.99, r = 0.99 and r = 0.99, respectively; P < 0.01) and were more consistent than those determined by FPRNA (intraobserver, r = 0.97, r = 0.95 and r = 0.93, respectively; interobserver, r = 0.86, r = 0.96 and r = 0.91, respectively; P < 0.01). There was a good correlation between EDV, ESV and LVEF by FPRNA and those by LVG (r = 0.61, r = 0.72 and r = 0.91, respectively; P < 0.01), and there was an excellent correlation between QGS and LVG (r = 0.73, r = 0.83 and r = 0.87, respectively; P < 0.01). The mean EDV by QGS (100 +/- 11.3 mL) was significantly lower than by FPRNA (132 +/- 16.8 mL) or LVG (130 +/- 8.1 mL), and the mean ESV by QGS (53.8 +/- 9.3 mL) was lower than by FPRNA (73.0 +/- 13.3 mL). Ejection fraction values were highest by LVG (57.1% +/- 3.2%), then QGS (51.8% +/- 3.0%) and FPRNA (48.9% +/- 2.4%). CONCLUSION: QGS gave more reproducible results than FPRNA. LV volumes and LVEF calculated by QGS correlated well to those by LVG.
UNLABELLED: We compared the left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV) and ejection fraction (LVEF) as calculated by Cedars automated quantitative gated SPECT (QGS) to those determined by first-pass radionuclide angiography (FPRNA) and contrast left ventriculography (LVG) in a group of 21 patients (mean age 61.4 +/- 9.2 y). METHODS: A total of 740 MBq 99mTc-tetrofosmin was administered rapidly into the right cubital vein at rest, and FPRNA was performed using a multicrystal gamma camera. One hour after injection, QGS was performed with a temporal resolution of 10 frames per R-R interval. LVG was performed within 2 wk. RESULTS: The EDV, ESV and LVEF calculated by QGS were highly reproducible (intraobserver, r = 0.99, r = 0.99 and r = 0.99, respectively; interobserver, r = 0.99, r = 0.99 and r = 0.99, respectively; P < 0.01) and were more consistent than those determined by FPRNA (intraobserver, r = 0.97, r = 0.95 and r = 0.93, respectively; interobserver, r = 0.86, r = 0.96 and r = 0.91, respectively; P < 0.01). There was a good correlation between EDV, ESV and LVEF by FPRNA and those by LVG (r = 0.61, r = 0.72 and r = 0.91, respectively; P < 0.01), and there was an excellent correlation between QGS and LVG (r = 0.73, r = 0.83 and r = 0.87, respectively; P < 0.01). The mean EDV by QGS (100 +/- 11.3 mL) was significantly lower than by FPRNA (132 +/- 16.8 mL) or LVG (130 +/- 8.1 mL), and the mean ESV by QGS (53.8 +/- 9.3 mL) was lower than by FPRNA (73.0 +/- 13.3 mL). Ejection fraction values were highest by LVG (57.1% +/- 3.2%), then QGS (51.8% +/- 3.0%) and FPRNA (48.9% +/- 2.4%). CONCLUSION: QGS gave more reproducible results than FPRNA. LV volumes and LVEF calculated by QGS correlated well to those by LVG.
Authors: D E Atsma; C D Bavelaar-Croon; G Germano; P Dibbets-Schneider; B L van Eck-Smit; E K Pauwels; E E van der Wall Journal: Int J Card Imaging Date: 2000-12
Authors: Jacco J N Visser; Ellinor Busemann Sokole; Hein J Verberne; Jan B A Habraken; Huybert J F van de Stadt; Joris E N Jaspers; Morgan Shehata; Paul M Heeman; Berthe L F van Eck-Smit Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Gautam Ramakrishna; Todd D Miller; David O Hodge; Michael K O'Connor; Raymond J Gibbons Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 5.952
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