4.2 Article

Performance of 8-vs 16 ECG-gated reconstructions in assessing myocardial function using Rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion imaging: Findings in a young, healthy population

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 1406-1413

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12350-022-03193-0

关键词

Ejection fraction; adenosine; PET; cardiac imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that 8 and 16 ECG gates can be used interchangeably for volumetric assessments in Rb-82 myocardial perfusion imaging. However, if filling and emptying rates are of interest, a minimum of 16 ECG gates should be used.
BackgroundCurrent imaging guidelines recommend using at least 16 ECG gates when performing MUGA and cardiac SPECT to assess left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, for Rubidium-82 (Rb-82) PET, 8 ECG-gated reconstructions have been a mainstay. This study investigated the implications of quantitative assessments when employing 16 gate, instead of 8 gate, reconstructions for Rb-82 myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI).MethodsThe study comprised 25 healthy volunteers (median age 23 years) who underwent repeat MPI sessions employing Rb-82 PET/CT. We report LVEF, its reserve (stress LVEF - rest LVEF), and their repeatability measures (RMS method) obtained for 8- and 16 ECG-gated reconstructions.ResultsSimilar LVEF and LVEF reserve estimates were found for the 8- and 16-gated reconstructions ([%] LVEF (8/16 gates): rest = 61 +/- 6/64 +/- 6, stress = 68 +/- 7/71 +/- 6, LVEF reserve (8/16 gates): 8 +/- 3/6 +/- 4, and all P >= 0.13). Similar test-retest repeatability measures were observed for rest and stress LVEF and their reserves [LVEF (8/16 gates); Rest = 4.5/4.6 (P = 0.81), Stress = 3.5/3.2 (P = 0.33), LVEF reserve = 46.7/49.3 (P = 0.13)].ConclusionIn healthy subjects, 8 and 16 ECG gates can be used interchangeably if only volumetric assessments are desired. However, if filling and emptying rates are of interest, a minimum of 16 ECG gates should be employed.

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