3.8 Article

Evaluation of left ventricular function and volumes in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy: gated single-photon emission computed tomography versus two-dimensional echocardiography

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 28, 期 11, 页码 1610-+

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s002590100624

关键词

gated SPET; 2D echocardiography; ischaemic cardiomyopathy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to perform a head-to-head comparison between two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography and gated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPET) for the evaluation of left ventricular (LV) function and volumes in patients with severe ischaemic LV dysfunction. Thirty-two patients with chronic ischaemic LV dysfunction [mean LV ejection fraction (EF) 25% +/- 6%] were studied with gated SPET and 2D echocardiography. Regional wall motion was evaluated by both modalities and scored by two independent observers using a 16-segment model with a 5-point scoring system (1 = normokinesia, 2 = mild hypokinesia. 3= severe hypokinesia, 4 = akinesia and 5 = dyskinesia). LVEF and LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were evaluated by 2D echocardiography using the Simpson's biplane discs method. The same parameters were calculated using quantitative gated SPET software (QGS, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center). The overall agreement between the two imaging modalities for assessment of regional wall motion was 69%. The correlations between gated SPET and 2D echocardiography for the assessment of end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were excellent (r = 0.94, P < 0.01, and r = 0.96, P < 0.01, respectively). The correlation for LVEF was also good (r = 0.83, P < 0.01). In conclusion: in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, close and significant relations between gated SPET and 2D echocardiography were observed for the assessment of regional and global LV function and LV volumes; gated SPET has the advantage that it provides information on both LV function/dimensions and perfusion.

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

3.8
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