Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Alfred Hospital, Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia.
J Nucl Cardiol. 2013 Jun;20(3):367-74. doi: 10.1007/s12350-013-9693-3. Epub 2013 Feb 27.
There is limited data on the concordance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) obtained via solid state dedicated cardiac cameras (SSD) and gated cardiac blood pool scans (GCBPS). This study aimed to examine the agreement of LVEF measured during GCBPS and Tl-201 myocardial perfusion scans (MPS) using SSD.
Seventy six patients were enrolled. Following stress MPS with 0.8 Mbq/kg (0.022 mCi/kg) Tl-201 and 8-frame gated rest studies after additional 15 Mbq (0.41 mCi) Tl-201, LVEFs were obtained using ECToolbox (ECT) and quantitative gated SPECT (QGS) software. Same day 16-frame planar GCBPS were performed. Interobserver variability was compared and LVEF results were compared using paired t tests, Pearson's correlation and the differences of the LVEF were plotted against GCBPS values.
For GCBPS, ECT and QGS, the mean (±SD) LVEF was 52% ± 14%, 61% ± 18% and 48% ± 19%, respectively. When compared to GCBPS, ECT and QGS, LVEFs had similar R values of 0.85 and 0.83, respectively, and mean differences [95% limits of agreement (LA)] of -8.6% (-27.4% to +10.2%, P < .001) and 4.2% (-17.2% to +25.6%, P = .001), respectively.
While the LVEF obtained by ECT or QGS demonstrates a statistically significant correlation with GCBPS, they are significantly different and the wide 95% LA suggest that Tl-201 MPS LVEFs derived from either software package are not interchangeable with GCBPS results.
关于使用固态专用心脏相机 (SSD) 获得的左心室射血分数 (LVEF) 与门控心脏血池扫描 (GCBPS) 的一致性,数据有限。本研究旨在检查使用 SSD 测量 GCBPS 和铊-201 心肌灌注扫描 (MPS) 时 LVEF 的一致性。
共纳入 76 例患者。在使用 0.8 Mbq/kg(0.022 mCi/kg)铊-201 进行应激 MPS 后,再额外使用 15 Mbq(0.41 mCi)铊-201 进行 8 帧门控静息研究,使用 ECToolbox(ECT)和定量门控 SPECT(QGS)软件获得 LVEF。同日进行 16 帧平面 GCBPS。比较了观察者间的变异性,并使用配对 t 检验、Pearson 相关和 LVEF 差值与 GCBPS 值的关系比较 LVEF 结果。
对于 GCBPS、ECT 和 QGS,LVEF 的平均值(±标准差)分别为 52%±14%、61%±18%和 48%±19%。与 GCBPS 相比,ECT 和 QGS 的 LVEF 具有相似的 R 值,分别为 0.85 和 0.83,平均差异[95%置信区间(LA)]分别为-8.6%(-27.4%至+10.2%,P<0.001)和 4.2%(-17.2%至+25.6%,P=0.001)。
虽然 ECT 或 QGS 获得的 LVEF 与 GCBPS 具有统计学显著相关性,但它们存在显著差异,较宽的 95%LA 表明,源自任一软件包的铊-201 MPS LVEF 与 GCBPS 结果不可互换。