...
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:定量QGS和4D-MSPECT用于定量门控18F-FDG PET的左心室容积和射血分数:与心脏MRI的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

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 (18)F-FDG PET. METHODS: Forty-four patients with severe coronary artery disease were examined with gated (18)F-FDG PET (8 gates per cardiac cycle). EDV, ESV, and LVEF were calculated from gated (18)F-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 (18)F-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 (18)F-FDG PET and cMRI for either algorithm. CONCLUSION: Despite small systematic differences that, among other aspects, limit interchangeability, agreement between gated (18)F-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:这项研究的目的是验证定量门控SPECT(QGS)和4D-MSPECT评估门控(18)F-F的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)。 FDG PET。方法:对44例严重冠状动脉疾病患者进行门控(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未能准确检测出1例患者的心肌边界。 4D-MSPECT,2例患者。对于其余的42例患者,门控(18)F-FDG PET与cMRI结果之间的相关性对于EDV(R = 0.94对于QGS和0.94对于4D-MSPECT),ESV(R = 0.95对于QGS和0.95对于4D)高。 -MSPECT)和LVEF(对于QGS,R = 0.94,对于4D-MSPECT,R = 0.90)。 QGS明显低估了LVEF(P <0.0001),而对于任何一种算法,门控(18)F-FDG PET和cMRI之间的其他参数均无显着差异。结论:尽管在其他方面存在系统上的细微差异,但在限制互换性等方面,门控(18)F-FDG PET和cMRI之间的一致性在广泛的临床相关体积和QGS和4D-MSPECT评估的LVEF值范围内均良好。

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