Danesh-Sani Seyed Hashem, Zakavi Seyed Rasoul, Oskoueian Leyla, Kakhki Vahid-Reza Dabbagh
Nuclear Medicine Research Center, Ghaem Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur. 2014;17(2):70-4. doi: 10.5603/NMR.2014.0020.
Agreement between gated myocardial perfusion SPECT (GSPECT) and echocardiography (ECHO) in the calculation of left ventricular end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV) and LVEF was assessed. Effect of perfusion defect and small hearts on this agreement was obtained. Because ECHO is a routine and widely used noninvasive modality for this purpose, we chose this technique for comparison with GSPECT.
In a prospective study, 50 consecutive patients (age = 59.7 ± 10.64 years) underwent rest Tc99m-sestamibi GSPECT and 2-D ECHO. The LVEF, EDV and ESV were calculated using QGS (Quantitative Gated SPECT) software.
Fourteen (28%) patients had perfusion defect in rest phase tomograms, while 36 (72%) had no perfusion defect. There was a significant correlation between two modalities in calculation of EDV, ESV and LVEF (all: p < 0.001, Pearson's correlation coefficients: r = 0.764, 0.831 and 0.813, respectively). A good correlation was noticed even in small hearts or in patients with or without previous myocardial infarction. There was a significant difference between GSPECT and ECHO in patients with no perfusion defect as well as in patients with small heart (ESV < 25 ml). On the other hand, no remarkable difference was noticed between two techniques in the presence of perfusion defect or in patients with ESV ≥ 25 ml.
There was a good agreement between EDV, ESV and LVEF derived from GSPECT and ECHO. There was a significant difference between two modalities in small hearts and in patients without perfusion defect, although in larger ventricles or in the presence of myocardial infarction no remarkable difference between two modalities was noticed.
评估门控心肌灌注单光子发射计算机断层扫描(GSPECT)与超声心动图(ECHO)在计算左心室舒张末期容积(EDV)、收缩末期容积(ESV)和左心室射血分数(LVEF)方面的一致性。研究灌注缺损和小心脏对此一致性的影响。由于ECHO是用于此目的的常规且广泛使用的无创检查方法,我们选择该技术与GSPECT进行比较。
在一项前瞻性研究中,50例连续患者(年龄=59.7±10.64岁)接受静息态锝-99m-甲氧基异丁基异腈GSPECT和二维ECHO检查。使用QGS(定量门控SPECT)软件计算LVEF、EDV和ESV。
14例(28%)患者在静息期断层图像上有灌注缺损,而36例(72%)无灌注缺损。两种检查方法在计算EDV、ESV和LVEF方面存在显著相关性(均为:p<0.001,Pearson相关系数分别为:r=0.764、0.831和0.813)。即使在小心脏患者或有或无既往心肌梗死的患者中也观察到良好的相关性。在无灌注缺损的患者以及小心脏(ESV<25ml)患者中,GSPECT和ECHO之间存在显著差异。另一方面,在存在灌注缺损的患者或ESV≥25ml的患者中,两种技术之间未观察到显著差异。
GSPECT和ECHO得出的EDV、ESV和LVEF之间存在良好的一致性。在小心脏患者和无灌注缺损的患者中,两种检查方法之间存在显著差异,尽管在较大心室或存在心肌梗死的情况下,两种检查方法之间未观察到显著差异。