These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative value of ECG-gated blood pool SPET and ECG-gated myocardial perfusion SPET in the assessment of global systolic left ventricular function.
    Author: Daou D, Vilain D, Colin P, Lebtahi R, Fourme T, Coaguila C, Benada A, Idy-Peretti I, Slama M, Le Guludec D.
    Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2003 Jun; 30(6):859-67. PubMed ID: 12677300.
    Abstract:
    Both electrocardiographically (ECG) gated blood pool SPET (GBPS) and ECG-gated myocardial perfusion SPET (GSPET) are currently used for the measurement of global systolic left ventricular (LV) function. In this study, we aimed to compare the value of GSPET and GBPS for this purpose. The population included 65 patients who underwent rest thallium-201 GSPET imaging at 15 min after (201)Tl injection followed by planar (planar(RNA)) and GBPS equilibrium radionuclide angiography immediately after 4-h redistribution myocardial perfusion SPET imaging. Thirty-five patients also underwent LV conventional contrast angiography (X-rays). LV ejection fraction (EF) and LV volume [end-diastolic (EDV) and end-systolic (ESV) volumes] were calculated with GBPS and GSPET and compared with the gold standard methods (planar(RNA) LVEF and X-ray based calculation of LV volume). For both LVEF and LV volume, the inter-observer variability was lower with GBPS than with GSPET. GBPS LVEF was higher than planar(RNA) (P<0.01) and GSPET LVEF (P<0.01). Planar(RNA) LVEF showed a slightly better correlation with GBPS LVEF than with GSPET LVEF: r=0.87 and r=0.83 respectively. GSPET LV volume was lower than that obtained using X-rays and GBPS (P<0.01 for both). LV volume calculated using X-rays showed a slightly better correlation with GBPS LV volume than with GSPET LV volume: r=0.88 and r=0.83 respectively. On stepwise regression analysis, the accuracy of GSPET for the measurement of LVEF and LV volume was correlated with a number of factors, including planar(RNA) LVEF, signal to noise ratio, LV volume calculated using X-rays, summed rest score and acquisition scan distance (i.e. the radius of rotation). The accuracy of GBPS for the measurement of LVEF and LV volume was correlated only with the signal level, the signal to noise ratio and the acquisition scan distance. Both GSPET and GBPS provide reliable estimation of global systolic LV function. The better reliability of GBPS and in particular its lower sensitivity to different variables as compared with GSPET favours its use when precise assessment of global systolic LV function is clinically indicated.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]