4.2 Review

Normal values and standardization of parameters in nuclear cardiology: Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine working group database

期刊

ANNALS OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 188-199

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12149-016-1065-z

关键词

Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine (JSNM) working group; Normal database; Myocardial perfusion imaging; I-123-Metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) quantification

资金

  1. Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine
  2. Scientific Research in Japan
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K09947] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As a 2-year project of the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine working group activity, normal myocardial imaging databases were accumulated and summarized. Stress-rest with gated and non-gated image sets were accumulated for myocardial perfusion imaging and could be used for perfusion defect scoring and normal left ventricular (LV) function analysis. For single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) with multi-focal collimator design, databases of supine and prone positions and computed tomography (CT)-based attenuation correction were created. The CT-based correction provided similar perfusion patterns between genders. In phase analysis of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT, a new approach for analyzing dyssynchrony, normal ranges of parameters for phase bandwidth, standard deviation and entropy were determined in four software programs. Although the results were not interchangeable, dependency on gender, ejection fraction and volumes were common characteristics of these parameters. Standardization of I-123-MIBG sympathetic imaging was performed regarding heart-to-mediastinum ratio (HMR) using a calibration phantom method. The HMRs from any collimator types could be converted to the value with medium-energy comparable collimators. Appropriate quantification based on common normal databases and standard technology could play a pivotal role for clinical practice and researches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据