The consequences of a new software package for the quantification of gated-SPECT myocardial perfusion studies

9Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: Semiquantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) has reduced inter- and intraobserver variability, and enables researchers to compare parameters in the same patient over time, or between groups of patients. There are several software packages available that are designed to process MPS data and quantify parameters. In this study the performances of two systems, quantitative gated SPECT (QGS) and 4D-MSPECT, in the processing of clinical patient data and phantom data were compared. Methods: The clinical MPS data of 148 consecutive patients were analysed using QGS and 4D-MSPECT to determine the end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume and left ventricular ejection fraction. Patients were divided into groups based on gender, body mass index, heart size, stressor type and defect type. The AGATE dynamic heart phantom was used to provide reference values for the left ventricular ejection fraction. Results: Although the correlations were excellent (correlation coefficients 0.886 to 0.980) for all parameters, significant differences (p∈ <70 ml). Other clinical factors had no direct influence on the relationship. Additionally, the phantom data indicated good linear responses of both systems. Conclusion: The discrepancies between these software packages were clinically relevant, and influenced by heart size. The possibility of such discrepancies should be taken into account when a new quantitative software system is introduced, or when multiple software systems are used in the same institution. © 2010 The Author(s).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Van Der Veen, B. J., Scholte, A. J., Dibbets-Schneider, P., & Stokkel, M. P. M. (2010). The consequences of a new software package for the quantification of gated-SPECT myocardial perfusion studies. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 37(9), 1736–1744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1465-6

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free