Zeng Yu, Jiang Lisha, Zhou Lina, Yang Xiaochuan, Zhou Luyi
Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi. 2013 Dec;30(6):1239-43.
In the present study, the accuracy of the 4-dimensional model single photon emission computed tomography (4D-MSPECT) and quantitative gated single photon emission computed tomography (QGS) was investigated for assessing left ventricular end-diastolic (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV) and ejection fraction (EF) from gated myocardial perfusion imaging (G-MPI) using left ventriculography (LVG) as reference. From December 2008 to June 2011, 85 patients, who underwent rest G-MPI and LVG (within 30 days) in West China Hospital, Sichuan University, were retrospectively recruited. EDV, ESV, and EF were calculated from G-MPI using 4D-MSPECT and QGS. Eighty-five patients (47 men, 38 women; age 57 +/- 13 years) were finally analyzed. Correlation between results of G-MPI and LVG was high for EDV, r = 0.89 (4D-MSPECT), r = 0.81 (QGS); ESV, r = 0.97 (4D-MSPECT), R = 0.95(QGS); EF, r = 0.95 (4D-MSPECT), r = 0.93 (QGS). 4D-MSPECT and QGS underestimated EDV significantly compared with LVG [(125 +/- 20) mL (4D-MSPECT), (118 +/- 39) mL (QGS), (131 +/- 33)mL (LVG)]. The ESV, 4D-MSPECT and QGS values did not differ significantly from LVG [(47 +/- 32) mL (4D-MSPECT), (53 +/- 29) mL (QGS), (49 +/- 37) mI (LVG)]. For LVEF, only QGS yielded values were significantly lower than LVG [61% +/- 21% (4D-MSPECT), 55% +/- 17% (QGS), and 63% +/- 19% (LVG)]. EDV, ESV, and EF as determined by 4D-MSPECT and QGS from G-MPI agree well with relevant values with LVG. However, Algorithm-inherent also showed slightly over- or under-estimation of volumes. Therefore, separated normal databases should be set up for each algorithm.
在本研究中，以左心室造影（LVG）为参考，研究了四维模型单光子发射计算机断层扫描（4D-MSPECT）和定量门控单光子发射计算机断层扫描（QGS）在评估门控心肌灌注成像（G-MPI）中的左心室舒张末期容积（EDV）、收缩末期容积（ESV）和射血分数（EF）方面的准确性。2008年12月至2011年6月，四川大学华西医院85例接受静息G-MPI和LVG（30天内）的患者被纳入回顾性研究。使用4D-MSPECT和QGS从G-MPI计算EDV、ESV和EF。最终分析了85例患者（47例男性，38例女性；年龄57±13岁）。G-MPI和LVG结果之间的相关性在EDV方面较高，r = 0.89（4D-MSPECT），r = 0.81（QGS）；ESV方面，r = 0.97（4D-MSPECT），R = 0.95（QGS）；EF方面，r = 0.95（4D-MSPECT），r = 0.93（QGS）。与LVG相比，4D-MSPECT和QGS显著低估了EDV[（125±20）mL（4D-MSPECT），（118±39）mL（QGS），（131±33）mL（LVG）]。ESV、4D-MSPECT和QGS的值与LVG无显著差异[（47±32）mL（4D-MSPECT），（53±29）mL（QGS），（49±37）mL（LVG）]。对于左心室射血分数，只有QGS得出的值显著低于LVG[61%±21%（4D-MSPECT），55%±17%（QGS），63%±19%（LVG）]。由4D-MSPECT和QGS从G-MPI确定的EDV、ESV和EF与LVG的相关值吻合良好。然而，算法本身也显示出对容积的轻微高估或低估。因此，应为每种算法建立单独的正常数据库。
