BACKGROUND: Various algorithms have been developed to compute right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volumes, end-systolic volumes, and ejection fractions (EF) from tomographic radionuclide ventriculography (TRV). The aims of this investigation were to establish sex-specific normal limits, to determine whether different algorithms produce the same normal values, and to compare TRV normal limits vs for magnetic resonance imaging values in the literature. METHODS: Fifty-one healthy volunteers (29 men, 22 women) were studied prospectively. All subjects had normal electrocardiograms and echocardiographic examinations, and underwent both planar radionuclide ventriculography and TRV. Four algorithms were used to process TRV data. RESULTS: Normal limits for most functional parameters differed significantly from one algorithm to another. Volumes were greater in men, but no statistically significant differences were found between men and women for LV EF or RV EF values for any method. Normal LV and RV EF and volumes were largely consistent with the literature for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Ventricular measurements differ significantly among TRV algorithms. Therefore, it is important to apply sex-specific normal limits that are specific to a given TRV algorithm in interpreting LV and RV EF and volume measurements for each patient.
BACKGROUND: Various algorithms have been developed to compute right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volumes, end-systolic volumes, and ejection fractions (EF) from tomographic radionuclide ventriculography (TRV). The aims of this investigation were to establish sex-specific normal limits, to determine whether different algorithms produce the same normal values, and to compare TRV normal limits vs for magnetic resonance imaging values in the literature. METHODS: Fifty-one healthy volunteers (29 men, 22 women) were studied prospectively. All subjects had normal electrocardiograms and echocardiographic examinations, and underwent both planar radionuclide ventriculography and TRV. Four algorithms were used to process TRV data. RESULTS: Normal limits for most functional parameters differed significantly from one algorithm to another. Volumes were greater in men, but no statistically significant differences were found between men and women for LV EF or RV EF values for any method. Normal LV and RV EF and volumes were largely consistent with the literature for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Ventricular measurements differ significantly among TRV algorithms. Therefore, it is important to apply sex-specific normal limits that are specific to a given TRV algorithm in interpreting LV and RV EF and volume measurements for each patient.
Authors: Kenneth Nichols; Rola Saouaf; Ala'eldin A Ababneh; Robyn J Barst; Marlon S Rosenbaum; Mark W Groch; Abu H Shoyeb; Steven R Bergmann Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2002 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Kenneth J Nichols; Andrew Van Tosh; Pieter De Bondt; Steven R Bergmann; Christopher J Palestro; Nathaniel Reichek Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-03-31 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Kenneth J Nichols; Andrew Van Tosh; Yi Wang; Ji Chen; Ernest V Garcia; Christopher J Palestro; Nathaniel Reichek Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 1.690