BACKGROUND: Recently, the phase analysis of gated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) has become feasible via several software packages for the evaluation of left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony. We compared two quantitative software packages, quantitative gated SPECT (QGS) and Emory cardiac toolbox (ECTb), with tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) as the conventional method for the evaluation of left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with severe heart failure (ejection fraction ≤35%) and regular heart rhythm, who referred for gated-SPECT MPI, were enrolled. TDI was performed within 3 days after MPI. Dyssynchrony parameters derived from gated-SPECT MPI were analyzed by QGS and ECTb and were compared with the Yu index and septal-lateral wall delay measured by TDI. QGS and ECTb showed a good correlation for assessment of phase histogram bandwidth (PHB) and phase standard deviation (PSD) (r = 0.664 and r = 0.731, P < .001, respectively). However, the mean value of PHB and PSD by ECTb was significantly higher than that of QGS. No significant correlation was found between ECTb and QGS and the Yu index. Nevertheless, PHB, PSD, and entropy derived from QGS revealed a significant (r = 0.424, r = 0.478, r = 0.543, respectively; P < .02) correlation with septal-lateral wall delay. CONCLUSION: Despite a good correlation between QGS and ECTb software packages, different normal cut-off values of PSD and PHB should be defined for each software package. There was only a modest correlation between phase analysis of gated-SPECT MPI and TDI data, especially in the population of heart failure patients with both narrow and wide QRS complex.
BACKGROUND: Recently, the phase analysis of gated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) has become feasible via several software packages for the evaluation of left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony. We compared two quantitative software packages, quantitative gated SPECT (QGS) and Emory cardiac toolbox (ECTb), with tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) as the conventional method for the evaluation of left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with severe heart failure (ejection fraction ≤35%) and regular heart rhythm, who referred for gated-SPECT MPI, were enrolled. TDI was performed within 3 days after MPI. Dyssynchrony parameters derived from gated-SPECT MPI were analyzed by QGS and ECTb and were compared with the Yu index and septal-lateral wall delay measured by TDI. QGS and ECTb showed a good correlation for assessment of phase histogram bandwidth (PHB) and phase standard deviation (PSD) (r = 0.664 and r = 0.731, P < .001, respectively). However, the mean value of PHB and PSD by ECTb was significantly higher than that of QGS. No significant correlation was found between ECTb and QGS and the Yu index. Nevertheless, PHB, PSD, and entropy derived from QGS revealed a significant (r = 0.424, r = 0.478, r = 0.543, respectively; P < .02) correlation with septal-lateral wall delay. CONCLUSION: Despite a good correlation between QGS and ECTb software packages, different normal cut-off values of PSD and PHB should be defined for each software package. There was only a modest correlation between phase analysis of gated-SPECT MPI and TDI data, especially in the population of heart failurepatients with both narrow and wide QRS complex.
Authors: Cheuk-Man Yu; Yat-Sun Chan; Qing Zhang; Gabriel W K Yip; Chi-Kin Chan; Leo C C Kum; LiWen Wu; Alex Pui-Wai Lee; Yat-Yin Lam; Jeffrey Wing-Hong Fung Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-12-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Sharon Ann Hunt; William T Abraham; Marshall H Chin; Arthur M Feldman; Gary S Francis; Theodore G Ganiats; Mariell Jessup; Marvin A Konstam; Donna M Mancini; Keith Michl; John A Oates; Peter S Rahko; Marc A Silver; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-04-14 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Cheuk-Man Yu; John Gorcsan; Gabe B Bleeker; Qing Zhang; Martin J Schalij; Matthew S Suffoletto; Jeffrey Wing-Hong Fung; David Schwartzman; Yat-Sun Chan; Masaki Tanabe; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2007-08-20 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Gabe B Bleeker; Eduard R Holman; Paul Steendijk; Eric Boersma; Ernst E van der Wall; Martin J Schalij; Jeroen J Bax Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-11-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Adam S Goldberg; M Chadi Alraies; Manuel D Cerqueira; Wael A Jaber; Wael A Aljaroudi Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Serge D Van Kriekinge; Hidetaka Nishina; Muneo Ohba; Daniel S Berman; Guido Germano Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Maureen M Henneman; Ji Chen; Claudia Ypenburg; Petra Dibbets; Gabe B Bleeker; Eric Boersma; Marcel P Stokkel; Ernst E van der Wall; Ernest V Garcia; Jeroen J Bax Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-04-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Paul L Hess; Linda K Shaw; Sreekanth Vemulapalli; Robert Pagnanelli; Christopher M O'Connor; Salvador Borges-Neto Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Maryam Shojaeifard; Tahereh Ghaedian; Nahid Yaghoobi; Hadi Malek; Hasan Firoozabadi; Ahmad Bitarafan-Rajabi; Majid Haghjoo; Ahmad Amin; Nasrin Azizian; Feridoon Rastgou Journal: Res Cardiovasc Med Date: 2015-12-19