Christopher L Hansen1. 1. Section of Cardiology, Jefferson Heart Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, 925 Chestnut Street, Mezzanine, Philadelphia, PA, USA, christopher.hansen@jefferson.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fourier (cosine) analysis of time activity curves (TAC) of radionuclide ventriculography (RVG) may oversimplify the TAC and has limitations. METHODS: We identified 21 patients who had undergone 24 frame planar RVG with ejection fractions ranging from 8% to 76% (43% ± 19%). The TAC for each pixel was fitted to both a cosine and gaussian function then analyzed on a pixel-by-pixel basis then over the entire LV. Second, mathematical simulations were performed to analyze the stability of each fit in the presence of low amplitude and noise. RESULTS: The fit was slightly but significantly better for the gaussian compared to the cosine function (RMS gaussian 13.0% ± 2.5% vs 13.5% ± 2.1% cosine; P = .016). There was near exact correlation with amplitude and between gaussian mu and cosine phase. The SD of phase from the cosine fit correlated strongly with the SD of the mu from the gaussian fit. The proposed new measure of dyssynchrony, the sigma parameter of the gaussian fit, correlated with the SD of the cosine phase (r = 0.520, P = .016). Simulations showed gradual but modest deviation of the sigma parameter from the gaussian fit with lower amplitudes whereas the deviation of the calculated SD of phase increased exponentially with decreasing amplitude. CONCLUSIONS: First harmonic (cosine) fitting has significant limitations. Gaussian fitting is an alternative way to model the LV TAC. The sigma from the gaussian may provide additional information LV dyssynchrony and is less influenced by image noise. Gaussian fitting merits further evaluation for modeling LV function.
BACKGROUND: Fourier (cosine) analysis of time activity curves (TAC) of radionuclide ventriculography (RVG) may oversimplify the TAC and has limitations. METHODS: We identified 21 patients who had undergone 24 frame planar RVG with ejection fractions ranging from 8% to 76% (43% ± 19%). The TAC for each pixel was fitted to both a cosine and gaussian function then analyzed on a pixel-by-pixel basis then over the entire LV. Second, mathematical simulations were performed to analyze the stability of each fit in the presence of low amplitude and noise. RESULTS: The fit was slightly but significantly better for the gaussian compared to the cosine function (RMS gaussian 13.0% ± 2.5% vs 13.5% ± 2.1% cosine; P = .016). There was near exact correlation with amplitude and between gaussian mu and cosine phase. The SD of phase from the cosine fit correlated strongly with the SD of the mu from the gaussian fit. The proposed new measure of dyssynchrony, the sigma parameter of the gaussian fit, correlated with the SD of the cosine phase (r = 0.520, P = .016). Simulations showed gradual but modest deviation of the sigma parameter from the gaussian fit with lower amplitudes whereas the deviation of the calculated SD of phase increased exponentially with decreasing amplitude. CONCLUSIONS: First harmonic (cosine) fitting has significant limitations. Gaussian fitting is an alternative way to model the LV TAC. The sigma from the gaussian may provide additional information LV dyssynchrony and is less influenced by image noise. Gaussian fitting merits further evaluation for modeling LV function.
Authors: Frank Ruschitzka; William T Abraham; Jagmeet P Singh; Jeroen J Bax; Jeffrey S Borer; Josep Brugada; Kenneth Dickstein; Ian Ford; John Gorcsan; Daniel Gras; Henry Krum; Peter Sogaard; Johannes Holzmeister Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ji Chen; Ernest V Garcia; Jeroen J Bax; Ami E Iskandrian; Salvador Borges-Neto; Prem Soman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Ji Chen; Andreas P Kalogeropoulos; Liudmila Verdes; Javed Butler; Ernest V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: W F Kerwin; E H Botvinick; J W O'Connell; S H Merrick; T DeMarco; K Chatterjee; K Scheibly; L A Saxon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Eugene S Chung; Angel R Leon; Luigi Tavazzi; Jing-Ping Sun; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; John Merlino; William T Abraham; Stefano Ghio; Christophe Leclercq; Jeroen J Bax; Cheuk-Man Yu; John Gorcsan; Martin St John Sutton; Johan De Sutter; Jaime Murillo Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-05-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: E H Botvinick; M A Frais; D W Shosa; J W O'Connell; J A Pacheco-Alvarez; M Scheinman; R S Hattner; F Morady; D B Faulkner Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1982-08 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: N Schechtmann; E H Botvinick; M Dae; M M Scheinman; J W O'Connell; J Davis; S Winston; A Schwartz; J Abbott Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1989-03-15 Impact factor: 24.094
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