Yong Yao1,2,3, Tian-Jing Wei4, Da-Wei Wang3,5. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, the Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University (Shenzhen People's Hospital), Shenzhen, China. 2. Clinical Medicine Postdoctoral Research Station, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China. 3. State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fu Wai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. 4. Department of Clinical Laboratory, the Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University (Shenzhen People's Hospital), Shenzhen, China. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Abstract
Background: Phase analysis by 99mTc-MIBI gated single-photon emission computed tomography (GSPECT) has been considered to be an adequate method in the validation of left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony. Compared with GSPECT, prior myocardial infarction patients with myocardial perfusion defects but myocardial viability usually show preserved uptake of 18F-FDG, and extensive myocardium is detected by 18F-FDG gated positron emission tomography (GPET). Thus, theoretically, it should be more accurate. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of GPET for LV dyssynchrony assessment in comparison with GSPECT among infarction patients. Methods: A total of 146 patients with infarction underwent 2 consecutive days of GSPECT and GPET examinations. Quantitative gated SPECT-derived LV phase analysis was applied to GPET and GSPECT data to assess the presence of LV dyssynchrony via histogram bandwidth (BW) and phase standard deviation (SD). The correlation and agreement of BW and SD between GSPECT and GPET were examined. Factors (i.e., total perfusion defect, scar and mismatch) related to the discrepancies of LV dyssynchrony (i.e., BW and SD) in GPET and GSPECT were assessed by univariate and multivariate regression analysis. Results: A moderate correlation between GPET and GSPECT was found in the measurements of BW (r=0.554) and SD (r=0.537). Bland-Altman analysis revealed that GPET overestimated both BW and SD (20.5° and 9.5°, respectively). In addition, the BW and SD measured by GPET were still overestimated after subgroup analysis. Between GPET and GSPECT, multivariate regression analysis revealed that total perfusion defects were related to the difference in BW measurement (P<0.001), and mismatch was associated with the difference in SD measurement (P<0.01). Conclusions: In patients with infarction, GPET moderately correlated with GSPECT in assessing LV dyssynchrony. GPET overestimated both BW and SD, so these analyses should not be interchangeable in individual patients. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Background: Phase analysis by 99mTc-MIBI gated single-photon emission computed tomography (GSPECT) has been considered to be an adequate method in the validation of left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony. Compared with GSPECT, prior myocardial infarction patients with myocardial perfusion defects but myocardial viability usually show preserved uptake of 18F-FDG, and extensive myocardium is detected by 18F-FDG gated positron emission tomography (GPET). Thus, theoretically, it should be more accurate. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of GPET for LV dyssynchrony assessment in comparison with GSPECT among infarction patients. Methods: A total of 146 patients with infarction underwent 2 consecutive days of GSPECT and GPET examinations. Quantitative gated SPECT-derived LV phase analysis was applied to GPET and GSPECT data to assess the presence of LV dyssynchrony via histogram bandwidth (BW) and phase standard deviation (SD). The correlation and agreement of BW and SD between GSPECT and GPET were examined. Factors (i.e., total perfusion defect, scar and mismatch) related to the discrepancies of LV dyssynchrony (i.e., BW and SD) in GPET and GSPECT were assessed by univariate and multivariate regression analysis. Results: A moderate correlation between GPET and GSPECT was found in the measurements of BW (r=0.554) and SD (r=0.537). Bland-Altman analysis revealed that GPET overestimated both BW and SD (20.5° and 9.5°, respectively). In addition, the BW and SD measured by GPET were still overestimated after subgroup analysis. Between GPET and GSPECT, multivariate regression analysis revealed that total perfusion defects were related to the difference in BW measurement (P<0.001), and mismatch was associated with the difference in SD measurement (P<0.01). Conclusions: In patients with infarction, GPET moderately correlated with GSPECT in assessing LV dyssynchrony. GPET overestimated both BW and SD, so these analyses should not be interchangeable in individual patients. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: William T Abraham; Westby G Fisher; Andrew L Smith; David B Delurgio; Angel R Leon; Evan Loh; Dusan Z Kocovic; Milton Packer; Alfredo L Clavell; David L Hayes; Myrvin Ellestad; Robin J Trupp; Jackie Underwood; Faith Pickering; Cindy Truex; Peggy McAtee; John Messenger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Allan S Jaffe; Maarten L Simoons; Bernard R Chaitman; Harvey D White; Hugo A Katus; Bertil Lindahl; David A Morrow; Peter M Clemmensen; Per Johanson; Hanoch Hod; Richard Underwood; Jeroen J Bax; Robert O Bonow; Fausto Pinto; Raymond J Gibbons; Keith A Fox; Dan Atar; L Kristin Newby; Marcello Galvani; Christian W Hamm; Barry F Uretsky; Ph Gabriel Steg; William Wijns; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Phillippe Menasché; Jan Ravkilde; E Magnus Ohman; Elliott M Antman; Lars C Wallentin; Paul W Armstrong; Maarten L Simoons; James L Januzzi; Markku S Nieminen; Mihai Gheorghiade; Gerasimos Filippatos; Russell V Luepker; Stephen P Fortmann; Wayne D Rosamond; Dan Levy; David Wood; Sidney C Smith; Dayi Hu; José-Luis Lopez-Sendon; Rose Marie Robertson; Douglas Weaver; Michal Tendera; Alfred A Bove; Alexander N Parkhomenko; Elena J Vasilieva; Shanti Mendis Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Li Wang; Hong-Xing Wei; Min-Fu Yang; Jin Guo; Jian-Feng Wang; Wei Fang; Yue-Tao Wang Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Luis Eduardo Juarez-Orozco; Andrea Monroy-Gonzalez; Niek H J Prakken; Walter Noordzij; Juhani Knuuti; Robert A deKemp; Riemer H J A Slart Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 5.952