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
. 2007 Jul;14(4):544-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.nuclcard.2007.04.020. Epub 2007 Jun 27.

SPECT versus planar gated blood pool imaging for left ventricular evaluation

Affiliations

SPECT versus planar gated blood pool imaging for left ventricular evaluation

François Harel et al. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007 Jul.

Abstract

Background: We developed a new segmentation algorithm based on the invariance of the Laplacian (IL) to compute volumes and ejection fractions and compared these results with planar analysis and gradients by use of a standard algorithm (QBS).

Methods and results: Planar and single photon emission computed tomography blood pool acquisition was performed in 202 patients. Planar left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was used as the gold standard, and single photon emission computed tomography images were processed by both 3-dimensional (3D) methods. Correlations between each 3D algorithm and planar methodology were as follows: r = 0.77 for QBS and r = 0.84 for IL. Mean LVEFs were 32.72% +/- 13.05% for the planar method, 32.32% +/- 15.98% for QBS, and 31.93% +/- 13.44% for IL (P = .16). Bland-Altman analysis closely demonstrated negligible systematic bias for both 3D methods. Standard errors of bias were comparable between methods (9.36% for QBS and 7.44% for IL, P = .48). Linear regression of the Bland-Altman bias revealed a slope significantly different from 0 for the QBS method (0.22 +/- 0.048, P < .0001) but not for IL (-0.032 +/- 0.0044, P = .47).

Conclusion: The new segmentation algorithm provides comparable results to QBS and planar analysis. However, with QBS, the difference in LVEF was correlated with the magnitude of LVEF, which was not found with the new algorithm.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. J Nucl Cardiol. 2002 May-Jun;9(3):271-84 - PubMed
    1. Nucl Med Commun. 2004 Sep;25(9):971-8 - PubMed
    1. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1985 Aug;6(2):349-58 - PubMed
    1. Am J Cardiol. 1971 Nov;28(5):575-80 - PubMed
    1. J Nucl Med. 1996 Nov;37(11):1795-9 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources