BACKGROUND: Previously we reported that compared to iterative reconstruction with ordered subset expectation maximum (OSEM), wide beam reconstruction (WBR), which incorporates resolution recovery and controls noise during reconstruction without applying a post-processing filter, allows half-time SPECT acquisition with preserved diagnostic quality. We now postulate that with further Poisson noise treatment, quarter-time acquisition is possible. METHODS: The half-time WBR algorithm was optimized for quarter-time acquisition based upon anthropomorphic cardiac phantom data and a pilot group of 48 patients (pts). Then using the modified algorithm, 209 pts (91 men, 118 women, mean chest circumference = 40 in) were imaged at rest (R) and stress (S) (9/32 mCi (99m)Tc-sestamibi) full-time with OSEM, and again quarter-time with the modified WBR algorithm. The 180 degrees , 64-stop, full-time single-day rest (R) (25 second-per-stop, sps) and 8-frame per cardiac cycle post-stress (S) (20 sps) gated SPECT, and then quarter-time R (6 sps) and post-S (4 sps) gated SPECT were acquired. Blinded observers graded scan quality (1 = poor to 5 = excellent) based on myocardial uniformity, endocardial/epicardial edge definition, and background noise. Perfusion defects were scored using a 17-segment model. Using three commercially available software methods, end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were calculated. RESULTS: For the 209 prospective pts, mean image quality for R full-time OSEM and quarter-time WBR were similar (3.5 +/- 0.9 vs 3.6 +/- 0.7, p NS). For S, quarter-time WBR quality was superior to full-time OSEM (4.3 +/- 0.7 vs 3.9 +/- 0.7) (P = 1.78 x 10(-17)). In 35 pts with chest circumferences >44 inches a longer, 10 sps WBR acquisition improved resting image quality. Of 48 pts with abnormal scans (SSSs > 2 by OSEM) mean summed stress scores, summed rest scores, and summed difference scores were not significantly different with quarter-time WBR vs full-time OSEM (11.2 vs 10.9), (9.1 vs 9.0), (2.0 vs 1.9) (P NS). For the three software methods, there was a good correlation of LVEF, EDV, and ESV determined by WBR vs OSEM (all r > 0.92). ESVs were generally higher with WBR, primarily due to better delineation of the valve plane at end-systole, whereas EDVs were similar. Thus, EFs were significantly lower with WBR. CONCLUSIONS: For perfusion SPECT quarter-time WBR affords image quality, defect characterization, and functional assessment equivalent to full-time OSEM.
BACKGROUND: Previously we reported that compared to iterative reconstruction with ordered subset expectation maximum (OSEM), wide beam reconstruction (WBR), which incorporates resolution recovery and controls noise during reconstruction without applying a post-processing filter, allows half-time SPECT acquisition with preserved diagnostic quality. We now postulate that with further Poisson noise treatment, quarter-time acquisition is possible. METHODS: The half-time WBR algorithm was optimized for quarter-time acquisition based upon anthropomorphic cardiac phantom data and a pilot group of 48 patients (pts). Then using the modified algorithm, 209 pts (91 men, 118 women, mean chest circumference = 40 in) were imaged at rest (R) and stress (S) (9/32 mCi (99m)Tc-sestamibi) full-time with OSEM, and again quarter-time with the modified WBR algorithm. The 180 degrees , 64-stop, full-time single-day rest (R) (25 second-per-stop, sps) and 8-frame per cardiac cycle post-stress (S) (20 sps) gated SPECT, and then quarter-time R (6 sps) and post-S (4 sps) gated SPECT were acquired. Blinded observers graded scan quality (1 = poor to 5 = excellent) based on myocardial uniformity, endocardial/epicardial edge definition, and background noise. Perfusion defects were scored using a 17-segment model. Using three commercially available software methods, end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were calculated. RESULTS: For the 209 prospective pts, mean image quality for R full-time OSEM and quarter-time WBR were similar (3.5 +/- 0.9 vs 3.6 +/- 0.7, p NS). For S, quarter-time WBR quality was superior to full-time OSEM (4.3 +/- 0.7 vs 3.9 +/- 0.7) (P = 1.78 x 10(-17)). In 35 pts with chest circumferences >44 inches a longer, 10 sps WBR acquisition improved resting image quality. Of 48 pts with abnormal scans (SSSs > 2 by OSEM) mean summed stress scores, summed rest scores, and summed difference scores were not significantly different with quarter-time WBR vs full-time OSEM (11.2 vs 10.9), (9.1 vs 9.0), (2.0 vs 1.9) (P NS). For the three software methods, there was a good correlation of LVEF, EDV, and ESV determined by WBR vs OSEM (all r > 0.92). ESVs were generally higher with WBR, primarily due to better delineation of the valve plane at end-systole, whereas EDVs were similar. Thus, EFs were significantly lower with WBR. CONCLUSIONS: For perfusion SPECT quarter-time WBR affords image quality, defect characterization, and functional assessment equivalent to full-time OSEM.
Authors: Salvador Borges-Neto; Robert A Pagnanelli; Linda K Shaw; Emily Honeycutt; Shuli C Shwartz; George L Adams; Ralph Edward Coleman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: E Gordon DePuey; Ramesh Gadiraju; John Clark; Linda Thompson; Frank Anstett; Shuli C Shwartz Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2008-04-24 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Timothy M Bateman; Gary V Heller; A Iain McGhie; Staci A Courter; Robert A Golub; James A Case; S James Cullom Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-06-23 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: E Gordon Depuey; John J Mahmarian; Todd D Miller; Andrew J Einstein; Christopher L Hansen; Thomas A Holly; Edward J Miller; Donna M Polk; L Samuel Wann Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Kevin C Allman; Edward P Ficaro; Christopher L Hansen; Kenneth J Nichols; Randall C Thompson; William A Van Decker; Marko Yakovlevitch Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Thomas A Holly; Brian G Abbott; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Dennis A Calnon; Mylan C Cohen; Frank P DiFilippo; Edward P Ficaro; Michael R Freeman; Robert C Hendel; Diwakar Jain; Scott M Leonard; Kenneth J Nichols; Donna M Polk; Prem Soman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Regina S Druz; Lawrence M Phillips; Michelle Chugkowski; Loukas Boutis; Bruce Rutkin; Stanley Katz Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Ryo Nakazato; Daniel S Berman; Sean W Hayes; Mathews Fish; Richard Padgett; Yuan Xu; Mark Lemley; Rafael Baavour; Nathaniel Roth; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 10.057