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: [Determination of ventricular volumes in coronary artery disease: comparison of two gated SPECT analysis tools with MRI].
    Author: Gutberlet M, Mehl S, Fröhlich M, Hausmann H, Plotkin M, Ruf J, Denecke T, Spors B, Grothoff M, Hetzer R, Felix R, Amthauer H.
    Journal: Nuklearmedizin; 2006; 45(2):63-73. PubMed ID: 16547567.
    Abstract:
    AIM: Comparison of two gated SPECT analysis tools -- gated SPECT quantification (GSQ) and emory cardiac toolbox (ECT) -- in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and severely impaired left ventricular function (preoperative: EF <35% by cardiac catheter). PATIENTS, METHODS: A total of 56 gated SPECT examinations (one-day hybrid-protocol with (201)Tl-chloride for rest and (99m)Tc-sestamibi for stress applied during low-dose dobutamine stress MR-examination; temporal resolution; 8 phases per cardiac cycle) were performed in 36 patients (31 preoperatively, 25 postoperatively) and compared with MRI in 48 cases. Left ventricular end-diastolic (LV-EDV) and end-systolic (LV-ESV) volumes as well as the left ventricular ejection fraction (LV-EF) were calculated. RESULTS: The total volumetric assessment by both analysis algorithms (n = 56) showed good intraclass correlation coefficients preoperatively (n = 31), but even better postoperatively (n = 25). The mean reconstruction time was approximately 3 minutes ( +/- 2 SD) for GSQ and 15 minutes ( +/- 5 SD) for ECT. In comparison to MRI the results of both analysis tools also correlated well, but the agreement decreased in the presence of scared tissue. The mean LV-EF (MRI) preoperatively was 30.4%, in 6/36 patients above the values calculated from cardiac catheter, postoperatively 34.6%. CONCLUSION: Both gated SPECT analysis tools showed reliable volumetric assessments in high-risk patients with CAD and severely reduced LV-EF in comparison to MRI, with advantages for GSQ in terms of postprocessing time. However, for the calculation of LV-EF a markedly lower concordance with MR-results was observed for both methods depending on the presence of myocardial scars.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]