Browse > Article

Reference Values of Functional Parameters in Gated Myocardial Perfusion SPECT : Comparison with $QGS^{\circledR}$ and $4DM^{\circledR}$ Program  

Jeong, Young-Jin (School of Nuclear Medicine, Dong-A University College of Medicine)
Park, Tae-Ho (School of Internal Medicines, Dong-A University College of Medicine)
Cha, Kwang-Soo (School of Internal Medicines, Dong-A University College of Medicine)
Kim, Moo-Hyun (School of Internal Medicines, Dong-A University College of Medicine)
Kim, Young-Dae (School of Internal Medicines, Dong-A University College of Medicine)
Kang, Do-Young (School of Nuclear Medicine, Dong-A University College of Medicine)
Publication Information
The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine / v.39, no.6, 2005 , pp. 430-437 More about this Journal
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Tc-99m MIBI; Gated myocardial perfusion SPECT; QGS; 4DM; Normal limits;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Ababneh AA, Sciacca RR, Kim B, Bergmann SR. Normal limits for left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes estimated with gated myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with normal exercise test results: influence of tracer, gender, and acquisition camera. J Nucl Cardiol 2000;7:661-8   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Rozanski A, Nichols K, Yao SS, Malholtra S, Cohen R, DePuey EG. Development and application of normal limits for left ventricular ejection fraction and volume measurements from 99mTc-sestamibi myocardial perfusion gates SPECT. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1445-50
3 De Bondt P, Claessens T, Rys B, De Winter O, Vandenberghe S, Segers P, et al. Accuracy of 4 Different Algorithms for the Analysis of Tomographic Radionuclide Ventriculography Using a Physical, Dynamic 4-Chamber Cardiac Phantom. J Nucl Med 2005;46:165-71
4 Park SW. Multicenter trial for estimation of normal values of echocardiographic indices in Korea. Korean Circulation J 2000;30:373-82   DOI
5 Verani MS, Mahmarian JJ, Hixson JB, Boyce TM, Staudacher RA. Diagnosis of coronary artery disease by controlled coronary vasodilation with adenosine and thallium-201 scintigraphy in patients unable to exercise. Circulation 1990;82:80-7   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
6 Jung SY, Ahn BC, Lee JT, Lee KB. Normal limits of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction measured by gated myocardial perfusion SPECT [abstract]. Korean J Nucl Med 2002;36:84P
7 Hammermeister KE, de Rouen TA, Dodge HT. Variables predictive of survival in patients with coronary disease: selection by univariate and multivariate analyses from the clinical, electrocardiographic, exercise, arteriographic, and quantitative angiographic evaluations. Circulation 1979;59:421-30   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
8 Svensson A, Akesson L, Edenbrandt L. Quantification of myocardial perfusion defects using three different software packages. Eur J Nucl Med 2004;31:229-32   DOI   PUBMED
9 Masahiro T, Shin-ichiro K, Keiichi C, Sunao M, Tetsuji K, Hidenobu N, et al. Comparison of Emory and Cedars-Sinai methods for assessment of left ventricular function from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT in patients with a small heart. Ann Nucl Med 2000;14:421-6   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Faber TL, Akers MS, Peshock RM, Corbett JR. Three-dimensional motion and perfusion quantification in gated single-photon emission computed tomograms. J Nucl Med 1991;32:2311-7   PUBMED
11 De Sutter J, Van de Wiele C, D'Asseler Y, De Bondt P, De Backer G, Rigo P, et al. Automatic quantification of defect size using normal templates: a comparative clinical study of three commercially available algorithms. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:1827-34   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Nuclear medical group of Siemens medical solution. The users manual for 4D-MSPECT. Operating Instructions 4D-MSPECT with e.soft 2002;127-34
13 Hambye AS, Vervaet A, Dobbeleir A. Variability of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes with quantitative gated SPECT: influence of algorithm, pixel size and reconstruction parameters in small and normal-sized hearts. Eur J Nucl Med 2004;31:1606-13   DOI   PUBMED
14 Ogilby JD, Iskandrian AS, Untereker WJ, Heo J, Nguyen TN, Mercuro J. Effect of intravenous adenosine infusion on myocardial perfusion and function. Hemodynamic/angiographic and scintigraphic study. Circulation 1992;86:887-95   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
15 Germano G, Kiat H, Kavanagh PB, Moriel M, Mazzanti M, Su HT, et al. Automatic quantification of ejection fraction from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med 1995;36(11):2138-47
16 De Bondt P, Van de Wiele C, De Sutter J, De Winter F, De Backer G, Dierckx RA. Age and gender specific differences in left ventricular cardiac function and volumes determined by gated SPET. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:620-4   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Johnson LL, Verdesca SA, Aude WY, Xavier RC, Nott LT, Campanella MW, et al. Postischemic stunning can affect left ventricular ejection fraction and regional wall motion on post-stress gated stestamibi tomograms. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:1641-8   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Schaefer WM, Lipke CS, Nowak B, Kaiser HJ, Reinartz P, Buecker A, et al. Validation of QGS and 4D-MSPECT for Quantification of Left Ventricular Volumes and Ejection Fraction from Gated 18F-FDG PET: Comparison with Cardiac MRI. J Nucl Med 2004;45:74-9   PUBMED
19 Pryor DB, Harrell FE, Lee KL, Califf RM, Rosati RA. Estimating the likelihood of significant coronary artery disease. Am J Med 1983;75:771-80   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Ficaro EP, Kritzman JN, Corbett JR. Development and clinical validation of normal Tc-99m sestamibi database: comparison of 3D-MSPECT to Cequal [abstract]. J Nucl Med 1999;40.(suppl):125P
21 Lipke CS, Kuhl HP, Nowak B, Kaiser HJ, Reinartz P, Koch KC, et al. Validation of 4D-MSPECT and QGS for quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction from gated 99mTc-MIBI SPET: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med 2004;31:482-90   DOI   PUBMED
22 Germano G, Kavanagh PB, Waechter P, Areedav J, Van Kriekinge S, Sharir T, et al. A new algorithm for the quantitation of myocardial perfusion SPECT. I: technical principles and reproducibility. J Nucl Med 2000;41:712-9   PUBMED
23 Hyun IY, Seo JK, Kwan J, Park KS, Choe WS, Lee WH. Normal Limits of Left Ventricular Volumes and Ejection Fraction Measured by Gated Myocardial Perfusion SPECT: Comparison of Tc-99m MIBI and Tl-201. Korean J Nucl Med 2003;37:147-52
24 Faber TL, Cooke CD, Folks RD, Vansant JP, Nichols KJ, DePuey EG, et al. Left ventricular function and perfusion from gated perfusion images: an integrated method. J Nucl Med 1999;40:650-9   PUBMED
25 Lum DP, Coel MN. Comparison of automatic quantification software for the measurement of ventricular volume and ejection fraction in gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. Nucl Med Comm 2003;24:259-66   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Schaefer WM, Lipke CS, Standke D, Kuhl HP, Nowak B, Kaiser HJ. et al. Quantification of Left Ventricular Volumes and Ejection Fraction from Gated 99mTc-MIBI SPECT: MRI Validation and Comparison of the Emory Cardiac Tool Box with QGS and 4D-MSPECT. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1256-63   PUBMED
27 Nichols K, Santana CA, Folks R, Krawczynska E, Cooke CD, Faber TL, et al. Comparison between ECTb and QGS for assessment of left ventricular function from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 2002;9:285-93   DOI   ScienceOn
28 White HD, Norris RM, Brown MA, Brandt PW, Whitlock M, Wild CJ. Left ventricular end-systolic volume as the major determinant of survival after recovery from myocardial infarction. Circulation 1987;76:44-51   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
29 Kritzman JN, Ficaro EP, Corbett JR. Reproducibility of 3-D MSPECT for quantitative gated SPECT sestamibi perfusion analysis [abstract]. J Nucl Med 2000;41.(suppl):166P
30 Nakajima K, Higuchi T, Taki J, Kawano M, Tonami N. Accuracy of Ventricular Volume and Ejection Fraction Measured by Gated Myocardial SPECT: Comparison of 4 Software Programs. J Nucl Med 2001;42:1571-8
31 De Bondt P, De Winter O, De Sutter J, Dierckx RA. Agreement between four available algorithms to evaluate global systolic left and right ventricular function from tomographic radionuclide ventriculography and comparison with planar imaging. Nucl Med Comm. 2005;26:351-9   DOI   ScienceOn