...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of nuclear cardiology: official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology >Gated blood-pool SPECT versus cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction.
【24h】

Gated blood-pool SPECT versus cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction.

机译:门控血池SPECT与心脏磁共振成像比较,可评估左心室容积和射血分数。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the accuracy of planar radionuclide angiography and different count-based and space-based electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated blood-pool single-photon emission computed tomography (GBPS) algorithms for assessment of left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), end-systolic volume (LVESV), and ejection fraction (LVEF) compared with the gold standard of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI). The goal is to assess the accuracy of a recently developed GBPS algorithm. METHODS AND RESULTS: Subjects had planar, GBPS, and cMRI sequentially. Datasets were processed by QBS software (Cedar-Sinai) and by MHI software (Montreal Heart Institute). Space-based approaches were used to compute LVEDV, LVESV, and LVEF. Count-based techniques were also used to assess LVEF. All results were compared to cMRI. Fifty-five patients (85% male; mean age 63 +/- 9 years) completed the study. LVEFs and their correlations to cMRI values were 43 +/- 12% (r = .82), 39 +/- 14% (r = .82), and 39 +/- 13% for MHI(space), QBS(space), and cMRI methodologies, respectively. LVEF by count-based methods also demonstrated good correlation to LVEF provided by cMRI (42 +/- 13%, r = .88 for MHI(count) and 46 +/- 15%, r = .84 for QBS(count)). Strong correlations were obtained for LVEDV (r = .96 for MHI and r = .92 for QBS) and for LVESV (.97 for MHI and r = .94 for QBS). CONCLUSIONS: All Gated blood-pool SPECT algorithms had significant variation in estimating LVEF. Nevertheless our software provides good estimates of LV volumes and LVEF. Such software may, therefore, be applied to assess LV morphology and function.
机译:背景:我们评估了平面放射性核素血管造影的准确性以及不同的基于计数和基于空间的心电图(ECG)门控的血池单光子发射计算机断层扫描(GBPS)算法的准确性,以评估左心室舒张末期容积(LVEDV) ,心脏收缩末期容积(LVESV)和射血分数(LVEF)与心脏磁共振成像(cMRI)的金标准相比。目的是评估最近开发的GBPS算法的准确性。方法和结果:受试者依次进行平面,GBPS和cMRI检查。数据集由QBS软件(Cedar-Sinai)和MHI软件(蒙特利尔心脏研究所)处理。天基方法用于计算LVEDV,LVESV和LVEF。基于计数的技术也用于评估LVEF。将所有结果与cMRI进行比较。五十五名患者(85%男性;平均年龄63 +/- 9岁)完成了研究。对于MHI(空间),QBS(空间),LVEF及其与cMRI值的相关性分别为43 +/- 12%(r = 0.82),39 +/- 14%(r = 0.82)和39 +/- 13% )和cMRI方法论。 LVEF通过基于计数的方法也显示出与cMRI提供的LVEF的良好相关性(对于MHI(计数)为42 +/- 13%,r = .88,对于QBS(计数)为46 +/- 15%,r = .84) 。对于LVEDV(对于MHI,r = 0.96,对于QBS,r = 0.92)和对于LVESV(对于MHI,0.99,对于QBS r = 0.94)获得了很强的相关性。结论:所有门控血池SPECT算法在估计LVEF方面都有显着差异。但是,我们的软件可以很好地估计LV量和LVEF。因此,此类软件可用于评估LV形态和功能。

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