INTRODUCTION: Myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (MPS) is one of the most widely used diagnostic methods in patients with suspected ischemic heart disease (IHD). Recently, a novel technique based on cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) detectors, pinhole collimators, and a stationary gantry was introduced for MPS. The aim of this work was to investigate how patient positioning affects the reconstructed MPS images using this novel technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients referred for a clinical MPS due to suspected IHD were included in the study. All patients underwent MPS imaging on a GE Discovery NM 530c CZT camera. After image acquisition with the heart positioned in the center of the quality field of view (QFOV), the patients were re-imaged in different positions 5-20 mm off-center. The heart was still positioned within the limits of the QFOV during the off-center scans. The summed stress score and/or the summed rest score (SSS and/or SRS) for the acquisition performed in the center was compared to the same parameter for the acquisitions performed off-center. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant increase in SSS and/or SRS when imaging was performed with the heart 5-20 mm outside the center of the QFOV compared to optimal positioning (7.7 ± 1.3 vs 6.6 ± 1.3, P = .006). The SSS and/or SRS increased with ≥2 U in 35% (14/40) of the off-center examinations. CONCLUSION: It is important to carefully position the patient's heart within the center of the QFOV when performing MPS with the Discovery NM 530c CZT camera to avoid positioning-related image artifacts that could affect the diagnostic accuracy.
INTRODUCTION: Myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (MPS) is one of the most widely used diagnostic methods in patients with suspected ischemic heart disease (IHD). Recently, a novel technique based on cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) detectors, pinhole collimators, and a stationary gantry was introduced for MPS. The aim of this work was to investigate how patient positioning affects the reconstructed MPS images using this novel technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients referred for a clinical MPS due to suspected IHD were included in the study. All patients underwent MPS imaging on a GE Discovery NM 530c CZT camera. After image acquisition with the heart positioned in the center of the quality field of view (QFOV), the patients were re-imaged in different positions 5-20 mm off-center. The heart was still positioned within the limits of the QFOV during the off-center scans. The summed stress score and/or the summed rest score (SSS and/or SRS) for the acquisition performed in the center was compared to the same parameter for the acquisitions performed off-center. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant increase in SSS and/or SRS when imaging was performed with the heart 5-20 mm outside the center of the QFOV compared to optimal positioning (7.7 ± 1.3 vs 6.6 ± 1.3, P = .006). The SSS and/or SRS increased with ≥2 U in 35% (14/40) of the off-center examinations. CONCLUSION: It is important to carefully position the patient's heart within the center of the QFOV when performing MPS with the Discovery NM 530c CZT camera to avoid positioning-related image artifacts that could affect the diagnostic accuracy.
Authors: Rory Hachamovitch; Sean Hayes; John D Friedman; Ishac Cohen; Leslee J Shaw; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-04-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: William Wijns; Philippe Kolh; Nicolas Danchin; Carlo Di Mario; Volkmar Falk; Thierry Folliguet; Scot Garg; Kurt Huber; Stefan James; Juhani Knuuti; Jose Lopez-Sendon; Jean Marco; Lorenzo Menicanti; Miodrag Ostojic; Massimo F Piepoli; Charles Pirlet; Jose L Pomar; Nicolaus Reifart; Flavio L Ribichini; Martin J Schalij; Paul Sergeant; Patrick W Serruys; Sigmund Silber; Miguel Sousa Uva; David Taggart Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2010-08-29 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Mahadevan Rajaram; Abdel K Tahari; Andy H Lee; Martin A Lodge; Benjamin Tsui; Stephan Nekolla; Richard L Wahl; Frank M Bengel; Paco E Bravo Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: R Hachamovitch; D S Berman; L J Shaw; H Kiat; I Cohen; J A Cabico; J Friedman; G A Diamond Journal: Circulation Date: 1998-02-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: W Lane Duvall; Lori B Croft; Tapan Godiwala; Eric Ginsberg; Titus George; Milena J Henzlova Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Simona Ben-Haim; Venkatesh L Murthy; Christopher Breault; Rayjanah Allie; Arkadiusz Sitek; Nathaniel Roth; Jolene Fantony; Stephen C Moore; Mi-Ae Park; Marie Kijewski; Athar Haroon; Piotr Slomka; Kjell Erlandsson; Rafael Baavour; Yoel Zilberstien; Jamshed Bomanji; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Shelley Redgate; David C Barber; John W Fenner; Abdallah Al-Mohammad; Jonathon C Taylor; Michael B Hanney; Wendy B Tindale Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Sharmila Dorbala; Karthik Ananthasubramaniam; Ian S Armstrong; Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; E Gordon DePuey; Andrew J Einstein; Robert J Gropler; Thomas A Holly; John J Mahmarian; Mi-Ae Park; Donna M Polk; Raymond Russell; Piotr J Slomka; Randall C Thompson; R Glenn Wells Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Brian G Abbott; James A Case; Sharmila Dorbala; Andrew J Einstein; James R Galt; Robert Pagnanelli; Renée P Bullock-Palmer; Prem Soman; R Glenn Wells Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Ami E Iskandrian; Vasken Dilsizian; Ernest V Garcia; Rob S Beanlands; Manuel Cerqueira; Prem Soman; Daniel S Berman; Alberto Cuocolo; Andrew J Einstein; Charity J Morgan; Fadi G Hage; Heinrich R Schelbert; Jeroen J Bax; Joseph C Wu; Leslee J Shaw; Mehran M Sadeghi; Nagara Tamaki; Philipp A Kaufmann; Robert Gropler; Sharmila Dorbala; William Van Decker Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 5.952