Daou Doumit, Van Kriekinge Serge D, Coaguila Carlos, Lebtahi Rachida, Fourme Thierry, Sitbon Olivier, Parent Florence, Slama Michel, Le Guludec Dominique, Simonneau Gerald
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Lariboisière University Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.
J Nucl Cardiol. 2004 May-Jun;11(3):293-304. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclcard.2004.01.008.
Quantification of right ventricular (RV) function is clinically relevant for the risk stratification and follow-up of patients with a wide spectrum of disease. This can be achieved with electrocardiography-gated blood pool single photon emission computed tomography (GBPS). We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the completely automatic QBS GBPS processing software as compared with equilibrium planar radionuclide angiography (RNA) and with a GBPS manual segmentation method (GBPS(35%)) for the measurement of global RV ejection fraction (EF), taking the first-pass RNA (FP-RNA) as the gold standard. In parallel, we compared the RVEF, RV end-diastolic volume (EDV), and RV end-systolic volume (ESV) provided by QBS and GBPS(35%).
The population included 85 patients with chronic post-embolic pulmonary hypertension. Twenty-one patients were excluded because of unsuccessful FP-RNA. Intraobserver and interobserver RVEF, RVEDV, and RVESV reproducibilities encountered with planar RNA, QBS, and GBPS(35%) were similar and compared favorably with those calculated with FP-RNA for RVEF. Mean RVEF was different between all methods. RVEF calculated with FP-RNA was better correlated to QBS (r = 0.68) and GBPS(35%) (r = 0.70) than to planar RNA (r = 0.59). RVEDV and RVESV with QBS were lower than with GBPS(35%), by 29% +/- 14% and 36% +/- 13%, respectively. RVEDV and RVESV with QBS were highly correlated to corresponding GBPS(35%) values: r = 0.88 and r = 0.91, respectively.
As opposed to FP-RNA, GBPS is highly successful for the quantification of RV function. Both QBS and GBPS(35%) provide RVEF values similarly well correlated to FP-RNA and performed better than planar RNA. RVEF, RVEDV, and RVESV provided by QBS and GBPS(35%) are highly correlated. All of these RV functional measurements require further validation versus a better gold standard before their accuracy can be established.
右心室（RV）功能的量化对于多种疾病患者的风险分层和随访具有临床意义。这可以通过心电图门控血池单光子发射计算机断层扫描（GBPS）来实现。我们旨在评估完全自动的QBS GBPS处理软件与平衡平面放射性核素血管造影（RNA）以及GBPS手动分割方法（GBPS(35%)）在测量整体右心室射血分数（EF）方面的准确性，将首次通过RNA（FP-RNA）作为金标准。同时，我们比较了QBS和GBPS(35%)提供的右心室射血分数（RVEF）、右心室舒张末期容积（EDV）和右心室收缩末期容积（ESV）。
研究人群包括85例慢性栓塞后肺动脉高压患者。21例患者因FP-RNA不成功而被排除。平面RNA、QBS和GBPS(35%)在观察者内和观察者间的RVEF、RVEDV和RVESV重复性相似，与用FP-RNA计算的RVEF重复性相比具有优势。所有方法之间的平均RVEF不同。用FP-RNA计算的RVEF与QBS（r = 0.68）和GBPS(35%)（r = 0.70）的相关性优于与平面RNA（r = 0.59）的相关性。QBS测量的RVEDV和RVESV低于GBPS(35%)，分别低29%±14%和36%±13%。QBS测量的RVEDV和RVESV与相应的GBPS(35%)值高度相关：r分别为0.88和0.91。
与FP-RNA不同，GBPS在右心室功能量化方面非常成功。QBS和GBPS(35%)提供的RVEF值与FP-RNA的相关性相似，且比平面RNA表现更好。QBS和GBPS(35%)提供的RVEF、RVEDV和RVESV高度相关。在确定其准确性之前，所有这些右心室功能测量都需要与更好的金标准进行进一步验证。
Zotero 插件