...
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Nuclear Medicine >Validation of QGS and 4D-MSPECT for Quantification of Left Ventricular Volumes and Ejection Fraction from Gated 18F-FDG PET: Comparison with Cardiac MRI
【24h】

Validation of QGS and 4D-MSPECT for Quantification of Left Ventricular Volumes and Ejection Fraction from Gated 18F-FDG PET: Comparison with Cardiac MRI

机译:QGS和4D-MSPECT用于门控18F-FDG PET定量左室容积和射血分数的验证:与心脏MRI的比较

获取原文
           

摘要

id="p-1">The aim of this study was to validate Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) and 4D-MSPECT for assessing left ventricular end-diastolic and systolic volumes (EDV and ESV, respectively) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from gated 18F-FDG PET. >Methods: Forty-four patients with severe coronary artery disease were examined with gated 18F-FDG PET (8 gates per cardiac cycle). EDV, ESV, and LVEF were calculated from gated 18F-FDG PET using QGS and 4D-MSPECT. Within 2 d (median), cardiovascular cine MRI (cMRI) (20 gates per cardiac cycle) was done as a reference. >Results: QGS failed to accurately detect myocardial borders in 1 patient; 4D-MSPECT, in 2 patients. For the remaining 42 patients, correlation between the results of gated 18F-FDG PET and cMRI was high for EDV (R = 0.94 for QGS and 0.94 for 4D-MSPECT), ESV (R = 0.95 for QGS and 0.95 for 4D-MSPECT), and LVEF (R = 0.94 for QGS and 0.90 for 4D-MSPECT). QGS significantly (P 0.0001) underestimated LVEF, whereas no other parameter differed significantly between gated 18F-FDG PET and cMRI for either algorithm. >Conclusion: Despite small systematic differences that, among other aspects, limit interchangeability, agreement between gated 18F-FDG PET and cMRI is good across a wide range of clinically relevant volumes and LVEF values assessed by QGS and 4D-MSPECT.
机译:id =“ p-1”>这项研究的目的是验证定量门控SPECT(QGS)和4D-MSPECT评估左心室舒张末期和收缩期容积(分别为EDV和ESV)和左心室射血分数(LVEF)来自门控 18 F-FDG PET。 >方法:对44例严重冠状动脉疾病患者进行了门控 18 F-FDG PET检查(每个心动周期8次门控)。使用QGS和4D-MSPECT从门控 18 F-FDG PET计算出EDV,ESV和LVEF。在2 d(中位数)内,进行了心血管电影MRI(cMRI)检查(每个心动周期20门)。 >结果:QGS未能准确检测1例患者的心肌边界; 4D-MSPECT,2例患者。对于其余的42例患者,EDV的门控 18 F-FDG PET结果与cMRI之间的相关性较高(QGS的 R = 0.94,4D-MSPECT的0.94) ,ESV(对于QGS, R = 0.95,对于4D-MSPECT是0.95)和LVEF(对于QGS, R = 0.94,对于4D-MSPECT是0.90)。 QGS显着( P <0.0001)低估了LVEF,而对于任一算法,门控 18 F-FDG PET和cMRI之间的其他参数均无显着差异。 >结论:尽管系统上存在细微的差异,但在限制互换性等其他方面,门控 18 F-FDG PET和cMRI之间的一致性在广泛的临床相关量和LVEF值通过QGS和4D-MSPECT评估。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号