OBJECTIVES: Wide Beam Reconstruction (WBR) (UltraSPECT, Ltd) uses resolution recovery and noise modeling to cope with decreased SPECT count statistics. Because WBR processing reconstructs half the usual SPECT count statistics, we postulate that image quality equivalent to a full-time acquisition can be achieved in either half the time or with half the radiopharmaceutical activity. METHODS: In 156 consecutive patients (pts) rest and 8-frame gated post-stress myocardial perfusion SPECT was performed following 333-444 and 1184-1480 MBq (9-12 and 32-40 mCi) Tc-99m sestamibi injections, respectively, with full-time (rest = 14 min; stress = 12.3 min) acquisitions processed with OSEM and also separate "half-time" acquisitions processed with WBR. A subsequent group of 160 consecutive pts matched in gender, weight, and chest circumference received "half-dose" rest and stress injections 214.6 ± 22.2 and 647.5 ± 92.5 MBq (5.8 ± 0.6 and 17.5 ± 2.5 mCi) with full-time SPECT acquisitions. Image quality (1 = poor to 5 = excellent) was judged by myocardial count density and uniformity, endocardial edge definition, perfusion defect delineation, right ventricular visualization, and background noise. RESULTS: Mean image quality for rest, stress, and post-stress gated images were 3.6 ± 0.7, 3.8 ± 0.7, and 3.9 ± 1.0, respectively, for "full-time OSEM; 3.7 ± 0.8, 4.0 ± 0.7, and 4.8 ± 0.4 for "half-time" WBR; and 4.3 ± 0.8, 4.6 ± 0.6, and 4.7 ± 0.6 for "half-dose" WBR. "Half-time" and "half-dose" WBR image quality were both superior to standard full-time OSEM (P's < .001). There was no significant difference between the summed stress and rest scores for "full-time" OSEM vs "half-time" WBR in 82 patients with perfusion defects. CONCLUSIONS: Both "half-time" and "half-dose" WBR provide myocardial perfusion SPECT quality superior to full-time OSEM, with an associated decrease in scan acquisition time and patient radiation exposure, respectively.
OBJECTIVES: Wide Beam Reconstruction (WBR) (UltraSPECT, Ltd) uses resolution recovery and noise modeling to cope with decreased SPECT count statistics. Because WBR processing reconstructs half the usual SPECT count statistics, we postulate that image quality equivalent to a full-time acquisition can be achieved in either half the time or with half the radiopharmaceutical activity. METHODS: In 156 consecutive patients (pts) rest and 8-frame gated post-stress myocardial perfusion SPECT was performed following 333-444 and 1184-1480 MBq (9-12 and 32-40 mCi) Tc-99m sestamibi injections, respectively, with full-time (rest = 14 min; stress = 12.3 min) acquisitions processed with OSEM and also separate "half-time" acquisitions processed with WBR. A subsequent group of 160 consecutive pts matched in gender, weight, and chest circumference received "half-dose" rest and stress injections 214.6 ± 22.2 and 647.5 ± 92.5 MBq (5.8 ± 0.6 and 17.5 ± 2.5 mCi) with full-time SPECT acquisitions. Image quality (1 = poor to 5 = excellent) was judged by myocardial count density and uniformity, endocardial edge definition, perfusion defect delineation, right ventricular visualization, and background noise. RESULTS: Mean image quality for rest, stress, and post-stress gated images were 3.6 ± 0.7, 3.8 ± 0.7, and 3.9 ± 1.0, respectively, for "full-time OSEM; 3.7 ± 0.8, 4.0 ± 0.7, and 4.8 ± 0.4 for "half-time" WBR; and 4.3 ± 0.8, 4.6 ± 0.6, and 4.7 ± 0.6 for "half-dose" WBR. "Half-time" and "half-dose" WBR image quality were both superior to standard full-time OSEM (P's < .001). There was no significant difference between the summed stress and rest scores for "full-time" OSEM vs "half-time" WBR in 82 patients with perfusion defects. CONCLUSIONS: Both "half-time" and "half-dose" WBR provide myocardial perfusion SPECT quality superior to full-time OSEM, with an associated decrease in scan acquisition time and patient radiation exposure, respectively.
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: Andrew J Einstein; Kevin W Moser; Randall C Thompson; Manuel D Cerqueira; Milena J Henzlova Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-09-11 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Carmelo V Venero; Gary V Heller; Timothy M Bateman; A Iain McGhie; Alan W Ahlberg; Deborah Katten; Staci A Courter; Robert J Golub; James A Case; S James Cullom Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-07-07 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: W Lane Duvall; Joseph M Sweeny; Lori B Croft; Eric Ginsberg; Krista A Guma; Milena J Henzlova Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2011-12-07 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: João V Vitola; Fernando Mut; Erick Alexánderson; Thomas N B Pascual; Mathew Mercuri; Ganesan Karthikeyan; Nathan Better; Madan M Rehani; Ravi Kashyap; Maurizio Dondi; Diana Paez; Andrew J Einstein Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-02-22 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