Community Forum top_calendar.gif top_members.gif top_faq.gif top_search.gif top_home.gif    

Go Back   Community Forum > The Internet Medical Journal > News
User Name
Password
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 16th, 2003, 10:54
sysadmin sysadmin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: 2001
Posts: 1,085
Gated myocardial perfusion tomography versus gated blood pool tomography for the calculation of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction.

Left ventricular (LV) volume, and not only ejection fraction (EF), is a crucial parameter for assessing the severity of cardiac disease and determining the patient's prognosis. The purpose of this study was to compare LV volumes and EF computed automatically from gated blood pool tomography (gBPT), using QUBE, and from gated myocardial perfusion tomography (gMPT), using QGS, in the same patients with a known history of myocardial infarction. The effects of the extent and severity of the myocardial perfusion defects were investigated. Thirty-seven patients were injected in a random sequence with 740 MBq of technetium-99m human serum albumin and 925 MBq of (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin, within an interval of 2 days. gBPT and gMPT were acquired on the same triple-head gamma camera using the following acquisition parameters: 360 degrees step-and shoot rotation, 32 stops (96 projections), 30 s per stop, 64x64 matrix (pixel size 5.8 mm), 8 time bins (75% forward/backward framing). Projection data were reconstructed by filtered back-projection using a Butterworth filter. LV volumes calculated from gBPT correlated well with LV volumes measured on gMPT ( r=0.93 for end-diastolic volume and 0.95 for end-systolic volume). Volumes above 200 ml, however, were substantially higher with gMPT than with gBPT. These discrepancies were related to the severity, but not the extent, of the perfusion defects. There was also good agreement between gBPT and gMPT for the LVEF ( r=0.91). On the Bland-Altman plot, no trend but a systematic error of 5.57% and a random error of 6.85% could be found. For the LVEF, the differences between the gated tomographic techniques were related neither to the extent nor to the severity of the perfusion defects. In conclusion, LV volumes and EF computed on gMPT correlated well with those measured on gBPT. Discrepancies were observed for large volumes presumably because of inaccuracies of gMPT in patients with severe perfusion defects. Comment: this study confirms that the left ventricular ejection fraction as estimated by nuclear SPECT imaging is reasonably accurate. When there are large defects on perfusion, the accuracy is decreased. [ Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002 Jun;29(6):735-41 ]

Last edited by sysadmin : March 16th, 2003 at 10:54.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
American Society of Nuclear Medicine Announces Annual Meeting Poster Presentations anonymous News 0 June 4th, 2004 21:01


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 13:38.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.



Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.  
- Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

We are committed to your good health. That means that while we provide editorial medical information, we must insist that you work with your own doctor in regards to your personal health issues. All content on Medjournal.Com is strictly editorial. It constitutes medical opinion, NOT ADVICE. We do not endorse or recommend the content of Medjournal.com or the sites that are linked FROM or TO Medjournal.com. Use common sense by consulting with your doctor before making any lifestyle changes or other medical decisions based on the content of these web pages. Medjournal.Com and the Internet Medical Journal shall not be held liable for any errors in content, advertising, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.