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: Diagnostic accuracy for CZT gamma camera compared to conventional gamma camera technique with myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography: Assessment of myocardial infarction and function.
    Author: Hedeer F, Akil S, Oddstig J, Hindorf C, Arheden H, Carlsson M, Engblom H.
    Journal: J Nucl Cardiol; 2023 Oct; 30(5):1935-1946. PubMed ID: 36913172.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The solid-state cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) gamma camera for myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography (MPS) has theoretical advantages compared to the conventional gamma camera technique. This includes more sensitive detectors and better energy resolution. We aimed to explore the diagnostic performance of gated MPS with a CZT gamma camera compared to a conventional gamma camera for detection of myocardial infarct (MI) and assessment of left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (LVEF), using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) as the reference method. METHODS: Seventy-three patients (26% female) with known or suspected chronic coronary syndrome were examined with gated MPS using both a CZT gamma camera and a conventional gamma camera as well as with CMR. Presence and extent of MI on MPS and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) CMR was evaluated. For LV volumes, LVEF and LV mass, gated MPS images and cine CMR images were evaluated. RESULTS: MI was found in 42 patients on CMR. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for the CZT and the conventional gamma camera were the same (67%, 100%, 100% and 69%). For infarct size > 3% on CMR, the sensitivity was 82% for the CZT and 73% for the conventional gamma camera, respectively. LV volumes were significantly underestimated by MPS compared to CMR (P ≤ .002 for all measures). The underestimation was slightly less pronounced for the CZT compared to the conventional gamma camera (2-10 mL, P ≤ .03 for all measures). For LVEF, however, accuracy was high for both gamma cameras. CONCLUSION: Differences between a CZT and a conventional gamma camera for detection of MI and assessment of LV volumes and LVEF are small and do not appear to be clinically significant.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]