Timothy L Miao1, Vinay Kansal1, R Glenn Wells1, Iftikhar Ali1, Terrence D Ruddy1,2, Benjamin J W Chow3,4. 1. Department of Medicine (Cardiology and Nuclear Medicine), University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin Street, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4W7, Canada. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 3. Department of Medicine (Cardiology and Nuclear Medicine), University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin Street, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4W7, Canada. bchow@ottawaheart.ca. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. bchow@ottawaheart.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of adopting new single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) cameras and new reconstruction algorithms on left ventricular (LV) volumes has not been well established. We sought to understand the impact of hardware and software changes on normal LV reference ranges. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent stress Tc-99m tetrofosmin 8-frame gated SPECT MPI were screened. Patients with a history of myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, abnormal MPI, or known LV dysfunction/reduced ejection fraction were excluded. A total of 1953 consecutive normal patients, with rest LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) measurements were analyzed. After stratifying according to sex, LV volumes indexed to body surface area were compared across the different gamma cameras. RESULTS: In a normal population, measurements with CZT were different from those obtained by the dual-headed NaI gamma cameras for LV EDVi (men: 53.6 ± 10.4 vs 48.3 ± 10.2 mL/m(2) and women: 43.3 ± 8.9 vs 37.8 ± 9.3 mL/m(2); P < 0.001) and LV ESVi (men: 21.7 ± 7.0 vs 16.9 ± 6.2 mL/m(2) and women: 13.4 ± 5.3 vs 10.6 ± 4.7 mL/m(2); P < 0.001). Inter- and intra-observer reliability for all measures was excellent. These findings were verified in a prospectively collected cohort. A sub-analysis of LV measurements comparing new resolution recovery and standard reconstruction software revealed no significant differences in LV measures. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that normal references ranges of LV volumes vary between SPECT cameras and confirms the need for establishing reference values that are camera specific.
BACKGROUND: The impact of adopting new single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) cameras and new reconstruction algorithms on left ventricular (LV) volumes has not been well established. We sought to understand the impact of hardware and software changes on normal LV reference ranges. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent stress Tc-99m tetrofosmin 8-frame gated SPECT MPI were screened. Patients with a history of myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, abnormal MPI, or known LV dysfunction/reduced ejection fraction were excluded. A total of 1953 consecutive normal patients, with rest LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) measurements were analyzed. After stratifying according to sex, LV volumes indexed to body surface area were compared across the different gamma cameras. RESULTS: In a normal population, measurements with CZT were different from those obtained by the dual-headed NaI gamma cameras for LV EDVi (men: 53.6 ± 10.4 vs 48.3 ± 10.2 mL/m(2) and women: 43.3 ± 8.9 vs 37.8 ± 9.3 mL/m(2); P < 0.001) and LV ESVi (men: 21.7 ± 7.0 vs 16.9 ± 6.2 mL/m(2) and women: 13.4 ± 5.3 vs 10.6 ± 4.7 mL/m(2); P < 0.001). Inter- and intra-observer reliability for all measures was excellent. These findings were verified in a prospectively collected cohort. A sub-analysis of LV measurements comparing new resolution recovery and standard reconstruction software revealed no significant differences in LV measures. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that normal references ranges of LV volumes vary between SPECT cameras and confirms the need for establishing reference values that are camera specific.
Entities:
Keywords:
Left ventricular volumes; cadmium-zinc-telluride; gamma camera
Authors: Christopher L Hansen; Richard A Goldstein; Olakunle O Akinboboye; Daniel S Berman; Elias H Botvinick; Keith B Churchwell; C David Cooke; James R Corbett; S James Cullom; Seth T Dahlberg; Regina S Druz; Edward P Ficaro; James R Galt; Ravi K Garg; Guido Germano; Gary V Heller; Milena J Henzlova; Mark C Hyun; Lynne L Johnson; April Mann; Benjamin D McCallister; Robert A Quaife; Terrence D Ruddy; Senthil N Sundaram; Raymond Taillefer; R Parker Ward; John J Mahmarian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.952
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: A W Hamer; M Takayama; K A Abraham; A H Roche; A R Kerr; B F Williams; M C Ramage; H D White Journal: Circulation Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lien-Hsin Hu; Tali Sharir; Robert J H Miller; Andrew J Einstein; Mathews B Fish; Terrence D Ruddy; Sharmila Dorbala; Marcelo Di Carli; Philipp A Kaufmann; Albert J Sinusas; Edward J Miller; Timothy M Bateman; Julian Betancur; Guido Germano; Joanna X Liang; Frederic Commandeur; Peyman N Azadani; Heidi Gransar; Yuka Otaki; Balaji K Tamarappoo; Damini Dey; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-05-13 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