PURPOSE: This investigation sought to determine which newly available asynchrony parameter derived from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT (GMPS) systolic wall thickening data best distinguishes patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) from normal subjects. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb) algorithms were used to compute left ventricular (LV) global and regional function and perfusion indices with regional contraction phases for 20 patients with LBBB, and in 9 control (CTL) subjects who had no function or perfusion abnormalities. Histogram plots of phase frequencies versus R-R interval times included phase standard deviation (SD), bandwidth (BW), skewness and kurtosis. Z-score asynchrony measures were derived for phases sampled using the conventional 17-segment model. RESULTS: In CTLs contraction occurred nearly simultaneously in all segments, while LBBBs exhibited a wide variety of heterogeneous contraction patterns. Global parameters that differed between LBBBs versus CTLs included EF, end-systolic volume and end-diastolic volume, and asynchrony measures that were different included BW, phase SD and z-scores. Z-scores most strongly discriminated LBBBs from CTLs (93% of cases correctly predicted, logistic regression chi(2) = 29.7, P < 0.0001). Z-scores, phase SD and lateral-septal wall timing were highly reproducible (r = 0.99, 0.99 and r = 0.87, respectively), with no significant inter-observer differences. CONCLUSION: While traditional global function parameters were different in LBBBs and CTLs, asynchrony parameters characterized LBBB most strongly.
PURPOSE: This investigation sought to determine which newly available asynchrony parameter derived from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT (GMPS) systolic wall thickening data best distinguishes patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) from normal subjects. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb) algorithms were used to compute left ventricular (LV) global and regional function and perfusion indices with regional contraction phases for 20 patients with LBBB, and in 9 control (CTL) subjects who had no function or perfusion abnormalities. Histogram plots of phase frequencies versus R-R interval times included phase standard deviation (SD), bandwidth (BW), skewness and kurtosis. Z-score asynchrony measures were derived for phases sampled using the conventional 17-segment model. RESULTS: In CTLs contraction occurred nearly simultaneously in all segments, while LBBBs exhibited a wide variety of heterogeneous contraction patterns. Global parameters that differed between LBBBs versus CTLs included EF, end-systolic volume and end-diastolic volume, and asynchrony measures that were different included BW, phase SD and z-scores. Z-scores most strongly discriminated LBBBs from CTLs (93% of cases correctly predicted, logistic regression chi(2) = 29.7, P < 0.0001). Z-scores, phase SD and lateral-septal wall timing were highly reproducible (r = 0.99, 0.99 and r = 0.87, respectively), with no significant inter-observer differences. CONCLUSION: While traditional global function parameters were different in LBBBs and CTLs, asynchrony parameters characterized LBBB most strongly.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Waren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Cheuk-Man Yu; Yat-Sun Chan; Qing Zhang; Gabriel W K Yip; Chi-Kin Chan; Leo C C Kum; LiWen Wu; Alex Pui-Wai Lee; Yat-Yin Lam; Jeffrey Wing-Hong Fung Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-12-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Maureen M Henneman; Ji Chen; Petra Dibbets-Schneider; Marcel P Stokkel; Gabe B Bleeker; Claudia Ypenburg; Ernst E van der Wall; Martin J Schalij; Ernest V Garcia; Jeroen J Bax Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ji Chen; Maureen M Henneman; Mark A Trimble; Jeroen J Bax; Salvador Borges-Neto; Ami E Iskandrian; Kenneth J Nichols; Ernest V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2008 Jan-Feb 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: John G F Cleland; Jean-Claude Daubert; Erland Erdmann; Nick Freemantle; Daniel Gras; Lukas Kappenberger; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark A Trimble; Salvador Borges-Neto; Stuart Smallheiser; Ji Chen; Emily F Honeycutt; Linda K Shaw; Jaekyeong Heo; Robert A Pagnanelli; E Lindsey Tauxe; Ernest V Garcia; Fabio Esteves; Frank Seghatol-Eslami; G Neal Kay; Ami E Iskandrian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-04-18 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: J Candell-Riera; G Oller-Martínez; O Pereztol-Valdés; J Castell-Conesa; S Aguadé-Bruix; M Soler-Peter; M Simó; C Santana-Boado; J Soler-Soler Journal: Heart Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Joon Hoon Jeong; June Hong Kim; Yong Hyun Park; Dong Cheul Han; Ki Won Hwang; Dong Won Lee; Jun Hyok Oh; Sung Gook Song; Jeong Su Kim; Kook Jin Chun; Taek Jong Hong; Yung Woo Shin Journal: Korean J Intern Med Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 2.884
Authors: Saara Sillanmäki; Jukka A Lipponen; Mika P Tarvainen; Tiina Laitinen; Marja Hedman; Antti Hedman; Antti Kivelä; Hanna Hämäläinen; Tomi Laitinen Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 5.952
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