Steyn Rachelle, Boniaszczuk John, Geldenhuys Theodore
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Groote Schuur Hospital, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
Cardiovasc J Afr. 2014 Mar-Apr;25(2):44-9. doi: 10.5830/CVJA-2013-082.
To determine how two software packages, supplied by Siemens and Hermes, for processing gated blood pool (GBP) studies should be used in our department and whether the use of different cameras for the acquisition of raw data influences the results.
The study had two components. For the first component, 200 studies were acquired on a General Electric (GE) camera and processed three times by three operators using the Siemens and Hermes software packages. For the second part, 200 studies were acquired on two different cameras (GE and Siemens). The matched pairs of raw data were processed by one operator using the Siemens and Hermes software packages.
The Siemens method consistently gave estimates that were 4.3% higher than the Hermes method (p < 0.001). The differences were not associated with any particular level of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). There was no difference in the estimates of LVEF obtained by the three operators (p = 0.1794). The reproducibility of estimates was good. In 95% of patients, using the Siemens method, the SD of the three estimates of LVEF by operator 1 was ≤ 1.7, operator 2 was ≤ 2.1 and operator 3 was ≤ 1.3. The corresponding values for the Hermes method were ≤ 2.5, ≤ 2.0 and ≤ 2.1. There was no difference in the results of matched pairs of data acquired on different cameras (p = 0.4933) CONCLUSION: Software packages for processing GBP studies are not interchangeable. The report should include the name and version of the software package used. Wherever possible, the same package should be used for serial studies. If this is not possible, the report should include the limits of agreement of the different packages. Data acquisition on different cameras did not influence the results.
确定西门子公司和赫姆斯公司提供的用于处理门控心血池（GBP）研究的两个软件包在我们科室应如何使用，以及使用不同相机采集原始数据是否会影响结果。
该研究有两个部分。对于第一部分，在通用电气（GE）相机上采集了200项研究，并由三名操作员使用西门子和赫姆斯软件包进行了三次处理。对于第二部分，在两台不同的相机（GE和西门子）上采集了200项研究。匹配的原始数据对由一名操作员使用西门子和赫姆斯软件包进行处理。
西门子方法得出的估计值始终比赫姆斯方法高4.3%（p < 0.001）。这些差异与任何特定水平的左心室射血分数（LVEF）均无关。三名操作员获得的LVEF估计值没有差异（p = 0.1794）。估计值的可重复性良好。在95%的患者中，使用西门子方法时，操作员1对LVEF的三次估计的标准差≤1.7，操作员2≤2.1，操作员3≤1.3。赫姆斯方法的相应值分别为≤2.5、≤2.0和≤2.1。在不同相机上采集的匹配数据对的结果没有差异（p = 0.4933）
用于处理GBP研究的软件包不可互换。报告应包括所使用软件包的名称和版本。只要有可能，系列研究应使用相同的软件包。如果无法做到这一点，报告应包括不同软件包的一致性限度。在不同相机上进行数据采集不会影响结果。
