Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2004 May-Jun;11(3):282-92.
doi: 10.1016/j.nuclcard.2004.01.007.

Model dependence of gated blood pool SPECT ventricular function measurements

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Model dependence of gated blood pool SPECT ventricular function measurements

Kenneth Nichols et al. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004 May-Jun.

Abstract

Background: Calculation differences between various gated blood pool (GBP) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (GBPS) algorithms may arise as a result of different modeling assumptions. Little information has been available thus far regarding differences for right ventricular (RV) function calculations, for which GBPS may be uniquely well suited.

Methods and results: Measurements of QBS (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif) and BP-SPECT (Columbia University, New York, NY) algorithms were evaluated. QBS and BP-SPECT left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) correlated strongly with conventional planar-GBP LVEF for 422 patients (r = 0.81 vs r = 0.83). QBS correlated significantly more strongly with BP-SPECT for LVEF than for RVEF (r = 0.80 vs r = 0.41). Both algorithms demonstrated significant gender differences for 31 normal subjects. BP-SPECT normal LVEF (67% +/- 9%) was significantly closer to values in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) literature (68% +/- 5%) than QBS (58% +/- 9%), but both algorithms underestimated normal RVEF (52% +/- 7% and 50% +/- 9%) compared with the MRI literature (64% +/- 9%). For 21 patients, QBS correlated similarly to MRI as BP-SPECT for LVEF (r = 0.80 vs r = 0.85) but RVEF correlation was significantly weaker (r = 0.47 vs r = 0.81). For 16 dynamic phantom simulations, QBS LVEF correlated similarly to BP-SPECT (r = 0.81 vs r = 0.91) but QBS RVEF correlation was significantly weaker (r = 0.62 vs r = 0.82). Volumes were lower by QBS than BP-SPECT for all data types.

Conclusions: Both algorithms produced LV parameters that correlated strongly with all forms of image data, but all QBS RV relationships were significantly different from BP-SPECT RV relationships. Differences between the two algorithms were attributed to differences in their underlying ventricular modeling assumptions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Eur Radiol. 2000;10(3):438-42 - PubMed
    1. J Nucl Med. 2001 Jul;42(7):1043-9 - PubMed
    1. J Nucl Med. 2001 Mar;42(3):401-7 - PubMed
    1. Circulation. 1982 Jan;65(1):82-91 - PubMed
    1. J Nucl Med. 2000 Sep;41(9):1445-50 - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources