Suppr超能文献

心电图门控单光子发射计算机断层扫描与心脏磁共振成像用于评估左心室容积和射血分数的Meta分析

Electrocardiogram-gated single-photon emission computed tomography versus cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction: a meta-analysis.

作者信息

Ioannidis John P A, Trikalinos Thomas A, Danias Peter G

机构信息

Clinical Trials and Evidence-Based Medicine Unit and Clinical and Molecular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece.

出版信息

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Jun 19;39(12):2059-68. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(02)01882-x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) for assessment of left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV) and ejection fraction (EF) compared with the gold standard of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

BACKGROUND

Several comparisons of ECG-gated SPECT with cardiac MRI have been performed for evaluation of LV volumes and EF, but each has considered few subjects, thus leaving uncertainty about the frequency of discrepancies between the two methods.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of data on 164 subjects from nine studies comparing ECG-gated SPECT versus cardiac MRI. Data were pooled in correlation and regression analyses relating ECG-gated SPECT and cardiac MRI measurements. The frequency of discrepancies of at least 30 ml in EDV, 20 ml in ESV and 5% or 10% in EF and concordance for EF < or =40% versus >40% were determined.

RESULTS

There was an overall excellent correlation between ECG-gated SPECT and cardiac MRI for EDV (r = 0.89), ESV (r = 0.92) and EF (r = 0.87). However, rates of discrepancies for individual subjects were considerable (37% [95% confidence interval [CI], 26% to 50%] for at least 30 ml in EDV; 35% [95% CI, 23% to 49%] for at least 20 ml in ESV; 52% [95% CI, 37% to 63%] for at least 5% in EF; and 23% [95% CI, 11% to 42%] for at least 10% in EF). The misclassification rate for the 40% EF cutoff was 11%.

CONCLUSIONS

Electrocardiogram-gated SPECT measurements of EDV, ESV and EF show high correlation with cardiac MRI measurements, but substantial errors may occur in individual patients. Electrocardiogram-gated SPECT offers useful functional information, but cardiac MRI should be used when accurate measurement is required.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估心电图(ECG)门控单光子发射计算机断层扫描(SPECT)与心脏磁共振成像(MRI)这一金标准相比,在评估左心室(LV)舒张末期容积(EDV)、收缩末期容积(ESV)和射血分数(EF)方面的准确性。

背景

已经进行了多项ECG门控SPECT与心脏MRI的比较,以评估LV容积和EF,但每项研究纳入的受试者较少,因此两种方法之间差异出现的频率仍存在不确定性。

方法

我们对9项比较ECG门控SPECT与心脏MRI的研究中164名受试者的数据进行了荟萃分析。将数据汇总用于ECG门控SPECT与心脏MRI测量值的相关性和回归分析。确定了EDV至少相差30 ml、ESV至少相差20 ml、EF至少相差5%或10%的差异频率,以及EF≤40%与>40%时的一致性。

结果

ECG门控SPECT与心脏MRI在EDV(r = 0.89)、ESV(r = 0.92)和EF(r = 0.87)方面总体具有良好的相关性。然而,个体受试者的差异率相当可观(EDV至少相差30 ml时为37%[95%置信区间(CI),26%至50%];ESV至少相差20 ml时为35%[95%CI,23%至49%];EF至少相差5%时为52%[95%CI,37%至63%];EF至少相差10%时为23%[95%CI,11%至42%])。EF临界值为40%时的错误分类率为11%。

结论

ECG门控SPECT对EDV、ESV和EF的测量与心脏MRI测量具有高度相关性,但个别患者可能会出现较大误差。ECG门控SPECT可提供有用的功能信息,但在需要精确测量时应使用心脏MRI。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验