Guillermo Romero-Farina1,2, Santiago Aguadé-Bruix3, Jaume Candell-Riera4, María N Pizzi4, David García-Dorado4. 1. Cardiology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. guirom@telefonica.net. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Paseo Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. guirom@telefonica.net. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Paseo Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Cardiology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the cut-off values of gated myocardial perfusion rest SPECT phase analysis parameters of normal subjects, and conduction (CCD) and mechanical cardiac diseases (MCD). METHODS: We prospectively analyzed 455 patients by means of phase analysis using SyncTool™ (Emory Cardiac Toolbox™). Of these, 150 corresponded to the control group (group 1, normal subjects) and 305 corresponded to patients with cardiac diseases (group 2, 63 with only CCD, 121 with only MCD, and 121 with CCD plus MCD). The optimal cut-off (CO) values of the peak phase (P), standard deviation (SD), bandwidth (B), skewness (S), and kurtosis (K) for discriminating between normal and dyssynchrony were obtained. RESULTS: In order to differentiate group 1 from group 2, CO of SD > 18.4 and CO of B > 51 were the most sensitive parameters (75.7%, 95% CI 70.5%-80.4%, and 78.7%, 95% CI 73.7%-83.1%, respectively), and CO of S ≤ 3.2 and CO of K ≤ 9.3 were the most specific (92%, 95% CI 86.4%-95.8%, and 94.7%, 95% CI 89.8%-97.7%, respectively). In order to differentiate patients with CCD and MCD, CO values were SD > 26.1, B > 70, S ≤ 2.89, and K ≤ 10.2. In order to differentiate between patients with (n: 26) and without (n: 216) criteria of cardiac resynchronization therapy, CO values were SD > 40.2, B > 132, S ≤ 2.3, and K ≤ 4.6. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, different CO values of phase histogram parameters were observed between normal subjects and patients with conduction and MCD, and between patients with and without criteria of cardiac resynchronization therapy.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the cut-off values of gated myocardial perfusion rest SPECT phase analysis parameters of normal subjects, and conduction (CCD) and mechanical cardiac diseases (MCD). METHODS: We prospectively analyzed 455 patients by means of phase analysis using SyncTool™ (Emory Cardiac Toolbox™). Of these, 150 corresponded to the control group (group 1, normal subjects) and 305 corresponded to patients with cardiac diseases (group 2, 63 with only CCD, 121 with only MCD, and 121 with CCD plus MCD). The optimal cut-off (CO) values of the peak phase (P), standard deviation (SD), bandwidth (B), skewness (S), and kurtosis (K) for discriminating between normal and dyssynchrony were obtained. RESULTS: In order to differentiate group 1 from group 2, CO of SD > 18.4 and CO of B > 51 were the most sensitive parameters (75.7%, 95% CI 70.5%-80.4%, and 78.7%, 95% CI 73.7%-83.1%, respectively), and CO of S ≤ 3.2 and CO of K ≤ 9.3 were the most specific (92%, 95% CI 86.4%-95.8%, and 94.7%, 95% CI 89.8%-97.7%, respectively). In order to differentiate patients with CCD and MCD, CO values were SD > 26.1, B > 70, S ≤ 2.89, and K ≤ 10.2. In order to differentiate between patients with (n: 26) and without (n: 216) criteria of cardiac resynchronization therapy, CO values were SD > 40.2, B > 132, S ≤ 2.3, and K ≤ 4.6. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, different CO values of phase histogram parameters were observed between normal subjects and patients with conduction and MCD, and between patients with and without criteria of cardiac resynchronization therapy.
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: Aju P Pazhenkottil; Ronny R Buechel; Lars Husmann; René N Nkoulou; Mathias Wolfrum; Jelena-Rima Ghadri; Janine Kummer; Bernhard A Herzog; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Heart Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: John G F Cleland; Jean-Claude Daubert; Erland Erdmann; Nick Freemantle; Daniel Gras; Lukas Kappenberger; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark A Trimble; Salvador Borges-Neto; Emily F Honeycutt; Linda K Shaw; Robert Pagnanelli; Ji Chen; Ami E Iskandrian; Ernest V Garcia; Eric J Velazquez Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2008 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Christophe Leclercq; Owen Faris; Richard Tunin; Jennifer Johnson; Ritsuchi Kato; Frank Evans; Julio Spinelli; Henry Halperin; Elliot McVeigh; David A Kass Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 29.690
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: 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
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: Wilfried Mullens; Richard A Grimm; Tanya Verga; Thomas Dresing; Randall C Starling; Bruce L Wilkoff; W H Wilson Tang Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-03-03 Impact factor: 24.094