| Literature DB >> 23632963 |
Kenichi Nakajima1, Koichi Okuda, Karin Nyström, Jens Richter, David Minarik, Hiroshi Wakabayashi, Shinro Matsuo, Seigo Kinuya, Lars Edenbrandt.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In patients with a small heart, defined as an end-systolic volume (ESV) of ≤20 mL calculated using the Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) program, underestimation of ESV and overestimation of ejection fraction (EF) using gated myocardial perfusion imaging are considered errors caused by inappropriate delineation of the left ventricle (LV). The aim of this study was to develop a new method for delineation of the LV and to evaluate it in studies using a digital phantom, normal subjects and patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23632963 PMCID: PMC3699706 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-013-2431-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging ISSN: 1619-7070 Impact factor: 9.236
Fig. 1Digital phantom with EDV 40 mL and EF 65 %. Differences in edge tracing between ExH (top left) and QGS (top right) are apparent. Theoretical volumes of the phantom and those created by each software type are shown in the lower panels. SA short axis, VLA, vertical long axis, HLA horizontal long axis, ExH EXINI heart, EDV end-diastolic volume, ESV end-systolic volume, EF ejection fraction
Digital phantoms and calculated EF and volumes
| Model | Digital phantom | ExH | QGS | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDV | ESV | EF | EDV | Relative to true value (%) | ESV | Relative to true value (%) | EF | EDV | Relative to true value (%) | ESV | Relative to true value (%) | EF | |
| 1 | 30 | 10.5 | 0.65 | 24 | 80 | 7.4 | 70 | 0.69 | 6 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0.93 |
| 2 | 30 | 16.5 | 0.45 | 24 | 80 | 16 | 97 | 0.33 | 6 | 20 | 1 | 6 | 0.80 |
| 3 | 40 | 14 | 0.65 | 31 | 78 | 13 | 93 | 0.60 | 12 | 30 | 1 | 7 | 0.93 |
| 4 | 40 | 22 | 0.45 | 31 | 78 | 19 | 86 | 0.39 | 13 | 33 | 4 | 18 | 0.67 |
| 5 | 60 | 21 | 0.65 | 43 | 72 | 20 | 95 | 0.54 | 26 | 43 | 4 | 19 | 0.83 |
| 6 | 60 | 33 | 0.45 | 43 | 72 | 29 | 88 | 0.32 | 27 | 45 | 12 | 36 | 0.56 |
| 7 | 80 | 28 | 0.65 | 53 | 66 | 25 | 89 | 0.53 | 41 | 51 | 11 | 39 | 0.73 |
| 8 | 80 | 44 | 0.45 | 54 | 68 | 34 | 77 | 0.37 | 42 | 53 | 21 | 48 | 0.50 |
| Mean | 74 | 87 | 37 | 22 | |||||||||
| SD | 5 | 9 | 13 | 18 | |||||||||
EDV end-diastolic volume, ESV end-systolic volume, EF ejection fraction, ExH EXINI heart, QGS quantitative gated SPECT software
Paired comparisons between parameters determined using ExH and QGS in the JSNM normal database (values are means)
| Parameter | ExH | QGS | Difference |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EF (%) | 71.0 | 69.2 | 1.8 | 0.068 |
| EDV (mL) | 85.9 | 75.0 | 10.8 | <0.0001 |
| ESV (mL) | 24.6 | 23.8 | 0.8 | 0.42 |
| PFR (/s) | 2.45 | 2.74 | −0.29 | <0.0001 |
| 1/3MFR (/s) | 1.51 | 1.65 | −0.14 | <0.0001 |
| TPFR (ms) | 163.3 | 162.2 | 1.1 | 0.62 |
| TPFR/RR | 0.181 | 0.179 | 0.002 | 0.41 |
Parameters determined using ExH and QGS in men and women in the JSNM normal database
| Parameter | ExH | QGS | Paired | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men ( | Women ( |
| Men ( | Women ( |
| Men | Women | |
| EF (%) | 70.7 ± 4.9 | 71.4 ± 5.0 | 0.54 | 67.2 ± 6.2 | 71.4 ± 6.0 | 0.0058 | 0.017 | 0.99 |
| EDV (mL) | 94.2 ± 15.7 | 76.7 ± 12.8 | <0.0001 | 82.2 ± 17.5 | 67.2 ± 14.1 | 0.0002 | <0.0001 | 0.0002 |
| ESV (mL) | 27.3 ± 4.7 | 21.7 ± 4.4 | <0.0001 | 27.6 ± 10 | 19.7 ± 7.0 | 0.0003 | 0.84 | 0.11 |
| PFR (/s) | 2.45 ± 0.49 | 2.46 ± 0.64 | 0.96 | 2.56 ± 0.55 | 2.95 ± 0.74 | 0.015 | 0.056 | <0.0001 |
| 1/3MFR (/s) | 1.49 ± 0.38 | 1.55 ± 0.39 | 0.47 | 1.53 ± 0.37 | 1.77 ± 0.45 | 0.018 | 0.14 | <0.0001 |
| TPFR (ms) | 175 ± 34 | 151 ± 27 | 0.0022 | 173 ± 34 | 151 ± 32 | 0.0080 | 0.45 | 0.96 |
| TPFR/RR | 0.186 ± 0.039 | 0.175 ± 0.020 | 0.12 | 0.183 ± 0.033 | 0.174 ± 0.022 | 0.19 | 0.32 | 0.91 |
Parameters determined using ExH and QGS in the NH and SH groups from the JSNM normal database
| Parameter | ExH | QGS | Paired | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NH group ( | SH group ( |
| NH group ( | SH group ( |
| NH group ( | SH group ( | |
| EF (%) | 71.6 ± 4.2 | 70.0 ± 5.9 | 0.19 | 66.1 ± 4.9 | 74.5 ± 5.1 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0034 |
| EDV (mL) | 91.2 ± 16.0 | 77.1 ± 14.4 | 0.0005 | 85.0 ± 13.6 | 58.5 ± 8.4 | <0.0001 | 0.0050 | <0.0001 |
| ESV (mL) | 25.8 ± 5.3 | 22.8 ± 4.9 | 0.024 | 29.2 ± 7.8 | 15.0 ± 3.5 | <0.0001 | 0.0028 | <0.0001 |
| PFR (/s) | 2.45 ± 0.50 | 2.46 ± 0.66 | 0.97 | 2.64 ± 0.60 | 2.93 ± 0.75 | 0.079 | 0.0035 | <0.0001 |
| 1/3MFR (/s) | 1.50 ± 0.35 | 1.53 ± 0.44 | 0.75 | 1.61 ± 0.41 | 1.71 ± 0.44 | 0.36 | 0.0016 | 0.0013 |
| TPFR (ms) | 166 ± 34 | 159 ± 32 | 0.37 | 165 ± 35 | 157 ± 32 | 0.33 | 0.75 | 0.71 |
| TPFR/RR | 0.180 ± 0.031 | 0.182 ± 0.034 | 0.75 | 0.178 ± 0.027 | 0.180 ± 0.032 | 0.77 | 0.53 | 0.60 |
Fig. 2EF calculated using QGS (a) and ExH (b). The shaded area indicates confidence limits for the regression line (red solid circles women, blue open circles men)
Fig. 3EFs of the NH, SH20 and SH10 groups of consecutive patients calculated using QGS (a) and ExH (b) (solid circles NH patients, open circles SH patients, blue circles men, red circles women)
Fig. 4Preoperative gated SPECT imaging in a A 78-year-old woman with a small heart (height 142 cm, weight 43 kg, BSA 1.17 m2). The EFs calculated using ExH and QGS were 76 % and 93 %, respectively. Echocardiography showed EDV 64 mL, ESV 15 mL and EF 77 % by Teichholz’s formula