BACKGROUND: ECG-gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging is usually acquired in supine position. However, some patients are not comfortable in this position for a variety of personal or medical reasons. Our aim was to investigate the effect of patient positioning on quantitative SPECT imaging results using normal supine database. METHODS: 55 patients (mean age 58.5 ± 8.3 years) were enrolled in this prospective study. Each patient had a pair of ECG-gated stress SPECT myocardial perfusion images acquired on two gamma cameras: one in supine position and the other in upright sitting position. Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF), end-diastolic (ED), and end-systolic (ES) left ventricular volumes (V), LV mass, summed stress perfusion defect score (SSS), and total severity score (TSS) were calculated automatically relative to a supine normal reference database. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in LVEF using the two cameras (0.65 ± 0.08 vs. 0.66 ± 0.10; P > 0.1). However, EDV, ESV, and LV mass were significantly smaller in sitting position than in supine position (89 vs. 80 ml; 33 vs. 29 ml and 115 vs. 109 ml, respectively, all P < 0.0001). On the other hand, SSS and TSS were significantly higher in sitting position than in supine position (5.16 vs. 8.73 and 166.82 vs. 288.27, both P < 0.0001). Overall, more studies in sitting position were interpreted as abnormal than in supine position (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patient positioning has a significant impact on quantitative gated SPECT imaging results. Using a supine normal reference database, SSS and TSS were larger in sitting position than in supine position. Thus, for imaging in sitting position, separate normal limits are required.
BACKGROUND: ECG-gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging is usually acquired in supine position. However, some patients are not comfortable in this position for a variety of personal or medical reasons. Our aim was to investigate the effect of patient positioning on quantitative SPECT imaging results using normal supine database. METHODS: 55 patients (mean age 58.5 ± 8.3 years) were enrolled in this prospective study. Each patient had a pair of ECG-gated stress SPECT myocardial perfusion images acquired on two gamma cameras: one in supine position and the other in upright sitting position. Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF), end-diastolic (ED), and end-systolic (ES) left ventricular volumes (V), LV mass, summed stress perfusion defect score (SSS), and total severity score (TSS) were calculated automatically relative to a supine normal reference database. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in LVEF using the two cameras (0.65 ± 0.08 vs. 0.66 ± 0.10; P > 0.1). However, EDV, ESV, and LV mass were significantly smaller in sitting position than in supine position (89 vs. 80 ml; 33 vs. 29 ml and 115 vs. 109 ml, respectively, all P < 0.0001). On the other hand, SSS and TSS were significantly higher in sitting position than in supine position (5.16 vs. 8.73 and 166.82 vs. 288.27, both P < 0.0001). Overall, more studies in sitting position were interpreted as abnormal than in supine position (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION:Patient positioning has a significant impact on quantitative gated SPECT imaging results. Using a supine normal reference database, SSS and TSS were larger in sitting position than in supine position. Thus, for imaging in sitting position, separate normal limits are required.
Entities:
Keywords:
ECG-gated SPECT; Myocardial perfusion imaging; patient positioning; sitting vs. supine position
Authors: Peter G Danias; Alan W Ahlberg; Mark I Travin; Nicholas C Mahr; Joseph E Abreu; Dominic Marini; April Mann; Jeffrey F Mather; William E Boden; Gary V Heller Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2002 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Hidetaka Nishina; Piotr J Slomka; Aiden Abidov; Shunichi Yoda; Cigdem Akincioglu; Xingping Kang; Ishac Cohen; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ryo Nakazato; Balaji K Tamarappoo; Xingping Kang; Arik Wolak; Faith Kite; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; John D Friedman; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ami E Iskandrian; Jack Heo; Deval Mehta; E Lindsey Tauxe; Michael Yester; Mary Beth Hall; Joan M MacGregor Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952