• Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
• /
• v.42 no.6
• /
• pp.435-443
• /
• 2008

Purpose: Gated myocardial perfusion SPECT provides not only myocardial perfusion status but also various functional parameters of left ventricle. We compared left ventricular ejection fraction, end-diastolic volume, LV mass by cardiac SPECT using Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS), 4D-MSPECT software and standard 2D-echocardiography. Materials and Methods: One hundred fourteen patients (male 51, female 63; 29-85 years old, mean $61.3\;{\pm}\;13.3$ years old) with normal perfusion status on Tc-99m tetrofosmin gated myocardial perfusion SPECT were analyzed retrospectively. Ejection fraction (LVEF), End-diastolic volume (LVED), LV mass (LVM) were calculated using QGS, 4D-MSPECT, and LVEF, LVM using 2D-echocardiography. Statistical analysis including Bland-Altman plot was performed using $MedCalc^{(R)}$ (MedCalc software, Mariakerke, Belgium). Results: The correlation of LVEF between methods was good: 0.95/0.96 (stress/rest) between QGS and 4D-MSPECT, 0.79 between QGS and echocardiography, 0.79 between 4D-MSPECT and echocardiography (p<0.001). Using Bland-Altman plot, the 95% confidence interval of agreement between QGS and 4D-MSPECT ranged from -12.7% to 7.3% / from -12.2% to 6.5% (stress/rest). The agreement between QGS and echocardiography, 4D-MSPECT and echocardiography ranged from -17.4% to 24.0%, and -14.8% to 27.0% respectively. The correlation of LVM between methods was also good: 0.95 between QGS and 4D-MSPECT, 0.76 between QGS and echocardiography, 0.73 between 4D-MSPECT and echocardiography (p<0.001). The 95% confidence interval of agreement between QGS and 4D-MSPECT ranged from -33.8g to 14.1g (stress/rest), The 95% confidence interval of agreement between QGS and echocardiography, 4D-MSPECT and echocardiography ranged from -148.7 g to 21.8. g, and -142.8 g to 35.5 g, respectively. Conclusion: There was a good correlation for LVEF, LVEO, LVM among methods (QGS, 4D-MSPECT, echocardiography), but the variance between methods was big. Therefore, the functional parameters by each method cannot be used interchangeably.

• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine
• /
• v.39 no.6
• /
• pp.430-437
• /
• 2005

Purpose: The objectives of this study were - First, to determine the normal range of left ventricular end diastolic volume (EDV), end systolic volume (ESV) and election fraction (EF) from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT for Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) and 4D-MSPECT (4DM), respectively. Second, to evaluate the relationships between values produced by both software packages. Materials & Methods: Tc-99m MIBI gated myocardial perfusion SPECT were performed for 77 patients (mean age: $49.6{\pm}13.7y$, n=37(M), 40(F)) with a low likelihood (<10%) of coronary artery disease (CAD) using dual head gamma camera (E.CAM, Siemens, USA). Left ventricular EDV, ESV and EF were automatically measured by means of QGS and 4DM, respectively. Results: in QGS, the mean EDV, ESV and EF for all patients were $78.2{\pm}25.2ml,\;27.4{\pm}12.9ml\;and\;66.6{\pm}8.0%$ at stress test respectively, not different from rest test (p>0.05). In 4DM, the mean EDV, ESV and EF for all patients were $89.1{\pm}26.4ml,\;29.1{\pm}12.8ml\;and\;68.5{\pm}6.7%$ at stress test. Most cases in 4DM, there was no significant difference statistically between stress and rest test (p>0.05). But statistically significant difference was found in EF ($68.5{\pm}6.7%$ at stress vs $70.9{\pm}8.0%$ at rest, p<0.05). Correlation coefficients between the methods for EDV, ESV and EF were comparatively high (0.95, 0.93, 0.71 at stress test and 0.95, 0.90, 0.69 at rest test, respectively). However, Bland-Altman plots showed a large range of the limit value of agreement for EDV, ESV and EF between both methods ($-30ml{\sim}10ml,\;-12ml{\sim}8ml,\;-14%{\sim}11%$ at stress test and $-32ml{\sim}5ml,\;-13ml{\sim}13ml,\;-18%{\sim}12%$ at rest test). Conclusion: We found the normal ranges of EDV, ESV and EF for patients with a low likelihood of CAD in both methods. We expect these values will be a good reference to interpret gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. Although good correlation was observed between both methods, they should not be used interchangeably. Therefore, when both programs are used at the same site, it will be important to apply normal limits specific to each method.

• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.122-127
• /
• 2010

Purpose: The Xpress3.$cardiac^{TM}$ which is a kind of wide beam reconstruction (WBR) method developed by UltraSPECT (Haifa, Israel) enables the acquisition of at quarter time while maintaining image quality. The purpose of this study is to investigate the usefulness of WBR method for decreasing scan times and to compare to it with filtered back projection (FBP), which is the method routinely used. Materials and Methods: Phantom and clinical studies were performed. The anthropomorphic torso phantom was made on an equality with counts from patient's body. The Tl-201 concentrations in the compartments were 74 kBq (2 ${\mu}Ci$)/cc in myocardium, 11.1 kBq (0.3 ${\mu}Ci$)/cc in soft tissue, and 2.59 kBq (0.07 ${\mu}Ci$)/cc in lung. The non-gated Tl-201 myocardial perfusion SPECT data were acquired with the phantom. The former study was scanned for 50 seconds per frame with FBP method, and the latter study was acquired for 13 seconds per frame with WBR method. Using the Xeleris ver. 2.0551, full width at half maximum (FWHM) and average image contrast were compared. In clinical studies, we analyzed the 30 patients who were examined by Tl-201 gated myocardial perfusion SPECT in department of nuclear medicine at Asan Medical Center from January to April 2010. The patients were imaged at full time (50 second per frame) with FBP algorithm and again quarter-time (13 second per frame) with the WBR algorithm. Using the 4D MSPECT (4DM), Quantitative Perfusion SPECT (QPS), and Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) software, the summed stress score (SSS), summed rest score (SRS), summed difference score, end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV) and ejection fraction (EF) were analyzed for their correlations and statistical comparison by paired t-test. Results: As a result of the phantom study, the WBR method improved FWHM more than about 30% compared with FBP method (WBR data 5.47 mm, FBP data 7.07 mm). And the WBR method's average image contrast was also higher than FBP method's. However, in result of quantitative indices, SSS, SDS, SRS, EDV, ESV, EF, there were statistically significant differences from WBR and FBP(p<0.01). In the correlation of SSS, SDS, SRS, there were significant differences for WBR and FBP (0.18, 0.34, 0.08). But EDV, ESV, EF showed good correlation with WBR and FBP (0.88, 0.89, 0.71). Conclusion: From phantom study results, we confirmed that the WBR method reduces an acquisition time while improving an image quality compared with FBP method. However, we should consider significant differences in quantitative indices. And it needs to take an evaluation test to apply clinical study to find a cause of differences out between phantom and clinical results.