» Articles » PMID: 15682368

Gated SPECT Assessment of Left Ventricular Function is Sensitive to Small Patient Motions and to Low Rates of Triggering Errors: a Comparison with Equilibrium Radionuclide Angiography

Overview
Journal J Nucl Cardiol
Date 2005 Feb 1
PMID 15682368
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Patient displacements and errors in R-wave detection are the main causes of inaccurate acquisition for gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and equilibrium radionuclide angiography (RNA). This study aimed to compare the influences of both factors between gated SPECT and RNA determinations of left ventricular ejection fraction.

Methods And Results: On gated SPECT and RNA acquisitions, recorded in 20 patients with coronary artery disease, we simulated the consequences of (1) 3-dimensional patient displacements of low (6.7 mm), moderate (13.4 mm), and high amplitude (20.1 mm) and (2) an erroneous triggering on T waves in 10% to 40% of recorded beats. Absolute values of left ventricular ejection fraction changes from baseline were higher with gated SPECT compared with RNA for patient displacements of low amplitude (5.0% +/- 3.8% vs 1.2% +/- 0.9%, P < .001) or moderate amplitude (10.0% +/- 6.2% vs 3.0% +/- 2.3%, P = .001) but not for patient displacements of high amplitude (12% +/- 9% vs 9% +/- 7%, P = not significant) and inaccurate triggering (for 20% T-wave triggering, 8.9% +/- 3.6% vs 7.9% +/- 3.0%; P = not significant).

Conclusion: Contrary to RNA, gated SPECT is vulnerable to small patient displacements, and thus, specific efforts might be useful for limiting this potential cause of erroneous results. Both techniques may be affected by low rates of triggering errors, suggesting that small acceptance windows on cycle length should be recommended not only for RNA but also for gated SPECT.

Citing Articles

Left ventricular ejection fraction determined with the simulation of a very low-dose CZT-SPECT protocol and an additional count-calibration on planar radionuclide angiographic data.

Tissot H, Roch V, Morel O, Veran N, Perrin M, Claudin M J Nucl Cardiol. 2019; 26(5):1539-1549.

PMID: 30815836 DOI: 10.1007/s12350-019-01619-w.


Motion correction and myocardial perfusion SPECT using manufacturer provided software. Does it affect image interpretation?.

Massardo T, Jaimovich R, Faure R, Munoz M, Alay R, Gatica H Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009; 37(4):758-64.

PMID: 19915841 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-009-1290-y.


Nitrate-enhanced gated SPECT in patients with primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: evidence of a reversible and nitrate-sensitive impairment of myocardial perfusion.

Djaballah W, Muller M, Angioi M, Moulin F, Codreanu A, Mandry D Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007; 34(12):1981-90.

PMID: 17665196 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-007-0423-4.

References
1.
Germano G . Automatic analysis of ventricular function by nuclear imaging. Curr Opin Cardiol. 1998; 13(6):425-9. DOI: 10.1097/00001573-199811000-00007. View

2.
Cwajg E, Cwajg J, He Z, Hwang W, Keng F, Nagueh S . Gated myocardial perfusion tomography for the assessment of left ventricular function and volumes: comparison with echocardiography. J Nucl Med. 1999; 40(11):1857-65. View

3.
He Z, Cwajg E, Preslar J, Mahmarian J, Verani M . Accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction determined by gated myocardial perfusion SPECT with Tl-201 and Tc-99m sestamibi: comparison with first-pass radionuclide angiography. J Nucl Cardiol. 1999; 6(4):412-7. DOI: 10.1016/s1071-3581(99)90007-7. View

4.
Hassan N, Escanye J, Juilliere Y, Marie P, David N, Olivier P . 201Tl SPECT abnormalities, documented at rest in dilated cardiomyopathy, are related to a lower than normal myocardial thickness but not to an excess in myocardial wall stress. J Nucl Med. 2002; 43(4):451-7. View

5.
Daou D, Pointurier I, Coaguila C, Vilain D, Benada A, Lebtahi R . Performance of OSEM and depth-dependent resolution recovery algorithms for the evaluation of global left ventricular function in 201Tl gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med. 2003; 44(2):155-62. View