Xia Wei, Zhu Tong, Ni Jing, Zhuang Juhua, Hu Cuihua
College of Mechanical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Hell J Nucl Med. 2013 May-Aug;16(2):91-6. doi: 10.1967/s002449910080. Epub 2013 May 20.
The aim of this study was to compare the correlation and consistency of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) obtained by ECG-gated myocardial perfusion SPET (GMPS) using the four formulas (R0-R3) in ECToolbox software and by equilibrium radionuclide ventriculography (ERNV), and determine the optimal diagnostic thresholds of the four formulas in a Chinese population. A hundred and three candidate donors (59 male and 44 female), including 38 patients with a history of myocardial infarction and 65 patients with suspected coronary heart disease, underwent both (99m)Tc-MIBI rest GMPS and technetium-99m red blood cells ((99m)Tc-RBC) ERNV within a week. The LVEF values calculated by ECToolbox R0, R1, R2 and R3 were compared with those obtained by ERNV. Using LVEF≥50% obtained by ERNV as the gold standard, the optimal diagnostic thresholds of the four formulas (R0-R3) were assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results showed that the mean LVEF value of ERNV was 54.6±17.5%, and the mean LVEF value of the four formulas was 64.1±15.7%, 56.3±15.1%, 69.9±17.9% and 56.3±13.6%, respectively, showing a significantly strong correlation between the results obtained by the two methods (r>0.85, P<0.001). All mean LVEF values obtained by the four formulas were higher than the mean LVEF value obtained by ERNV, and there was very significant difference between R0 and R2 results and the ERNV result (t=12.511 and 18.652, P<0.001). Furthermore, there was significant difference between R1 and R3 results and the ERNV result (t=2.169 and 2.570, P<0.05). Using ERNV LVEF≥50% as the normal diagnostic value, the optimal diagnostic threshold of R0∼R3 was 56.5%, 51.5%, 64.5% and 52.5%, respectively. There was a strong correlation between the LVEF values obtained by the four formulas in ECToolbox software and ERNV, but the numerical values of LVEF differed between the four formulas. In conclusion, A strong correlation was observed among R0, R1, R2 and R3 in the ECToolbox software when compared with ERNV and also between them for the assessment of LVEF. However, there were some differences in the numerical values of LVEF generated by the individual formulas, which must be taken into account in comparing clinical studies.
本研究旨在比较使用ECToolbox软件中的四个公式（R0 - R3）通过心电图门控心肌灌注单光子发射计算机断层扫描（GMPS）获得的左心室射血分数（LVEF）与平衡放射性核素心室造影（ERNV）所获得的LVEF的相关性和一致性，并确定这四个公式在中国人群中的最佳诊断阈值。103名候选供体（59名男性和44名女性），包括38名有心肌梗死病史的患者和65名疑似冠心病患者，在一周内接受了（99m）Tc - MIBI静息GMPS和锝 - 99m红细胞（（99m）Tc - RBC）ERNV检查。将ECToolbox R0、R1、R2和R3计算得到的LVEF值与ERNV获得的值进行比较。以ERNV获得的LVEF≥50%作为金标准，通过受试者操作特征（ROC）曲线评估四个公式（R0 - R3）的最佳诊断阈值。结果显示，ERNV的平均LVEF值为54.6±17.5%，四个公式的平均LVEF值分别为64.1±15.7%、56.3±15.1%、69.9±17.9%和56.3±13.6%，两种方法获得的结果之间显示出显著的强相关性（r>0.85，P<0.001）。四个公式获得的所有平均LVEF值均高于ERNV获得的平均LVEF值，R0和R2结果与ERNV结果之间存在非常显著的差异（t = 12.511和18.652，P<0.001）。此外，R1和R系结果与ERNV结果之间存在显著差异（t = 2.169和2.570，P<0.05）。以ERNV LVEF≥50%作为正常诊断值，R0至R3的最佳诊断阈值分别为56.5%、51.5%、64.5%和52.5%。ECToolbox软件中的四个公式获得的LVEF值与ERNV之间存在强相关性，但四个公式的LVEF数值不同。总之，与ERNV相比，ECToolbox软件中的R0、R1 R2和R3之间以及它们在评估LVEF方面存在强相关性。然而，各个公式生成的LVEF数值存在一些差异，在比较临床研究时必须考虑到这一点。
