K Nichols1, E G DePuey, A Rozanski. 1. Department of Radiology, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital, New York, NY 10025, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The feasibility of determining left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) from 99mTc-labeled sestamibi gated tomography (GSPECT) is well established. To improve precision of measurement, rules used by observers in processing tomograms were encoded for automation. METHODS AND RESULTS: LV centers were estimated from activity centroids of time-difference images exceeding 50% of maximum counts. End diastole and end systole were defined by time-varying maximum count extremes. Endocardial borders were generated by fitting maximum locations with fifth-order two-dimensional harmonics, searching inward to predetermined thresholds, and reconciling endocardial with valve plane points. Regression analysis of GSPECT EF yielded r = 0.87 versus equilibrium gated blood pool in 75 patients and r = 0.87 versus gated first pass in 65 patients. GSPECT EF interobserver variability was r = 0.92 and intraobserver automatic versus manual linear correlation was r = 0.94. A subgroup of 25 studies was analyzed by six independent observers, for whom EF agreement with the core laboratory ranged from r = 0.93 to r = 0.96. Experienced observers judged it necessary to alter end-diastolic or end-systolic frames in 7% of patients, endocardial borders in 14%, and LV centers in 28%. CONCLUSION: Results of automated GSPECT LV EF correlated well with those of manual GSPECT and gated first-pass and equilibrium blood pool values and were highly reproducible.
BACKGROUND: The feasibility of determining left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) from 99mTc-labeled sestamibi gated tomography (GSPECT) is well established. To improve precision of measurement, rules used by observers in processing tomograms were encoded for automation. METHODS AND RESULTS: LV centers were estimated from activity centroids of time-difference images exceeding 50% of maximum counts. End diastole and end systole were defined by time-varying maximum count extremes. Endocardial borders were generated by fitting maximum locations with fifth-order two-dimensional harmonics, searching inward to predetermined thresholds, and reconciling endocardial with valve plane points. Regression analysis of GSPECT EF yielded r = 0.87 versus equilibrium gated blood pool in 75 patients and r = 0.87 versus gated first pass in 65 patients. GSPECT EF interobserver variability was r = 0.92 and intraobserver automatic versus manual linear correlation was r = 0.94. A subgroup of 25 studies was analyzed by six independent observers, for whom EF agreement with the core laboratory ranged from r = 0.93 to r = 0.96. Experienced observers judged it necessary to alter end-diastolic or end-systolic frames in 7% of patients, endocardial borders in 14%, and LV centers in 28%. CONCLUSION: Results of automated GSPECT LV EF correlated well with those of manual GSPECT and gated first-pass and equilibrium blood pool values and were highly reproducible.
Authors: M L Ladenheim; B H Pollock; A Rozanski; D S Berman; H M Staniloff; J S Forrester; G A Diamond Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1986-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: K F Van Train; J Areeda; E V Garcia; C D Cooke; J Maddahi; H Kiat; G Germano; G Silagan; R Folks; D S Berman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1993-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: H R Schelbert; J W Verba; A D Johnson; G W Brock; N P Alazraki; F J Rose; W L Ashburn Journal: Circulation Date: 1975-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: E V Garcia; C D Cooke; K F Van Train; R Folks; J Peifer; E G DePuey; J Maddahi; N Alazraki; J Galt; N Ezquerra Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1990-10-16 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: P Brigger; S L Bacharach; G Srinivasan; K A Nour; J A Carson; V Dilsizian; A Aldroubi; M Unser Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 1999 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: T Nakata; Y Katagiri; Y Odawara; M Eguchi; M Kuroda; K Tsuchihashi; M Hareyama; K Shimamoto Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2000 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Olivier De Winter; Pieter De Bondt; Christophe Van De Wiele; Guy De Backer; Rudi A Dierckx; Johan De Sutter Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2004 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Christopher L Hansen; Richard A Goldstein; Daniel S Berman; Keith B Churchwell; C David Cooke; James R Corbett; S James Cullom; Seth T Dahlberg; James R Galt; Ravi K Garg; Gary V Heller; Mark C Hyun; Lynne L Johnson; April Mann; Benjamin D McCallister; Raymond Taillefer; R Parker Ward; John J Mahmarian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.952