OtherIMAGING

Semiqualitative Visual and Quantitative Morphometric Evaluations of Reduced Scan Time and Wide-Beam Reconstruction in Rest–Gated Stress SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging

Danny Basso, Gregory Passmore, Michael Holman, Ward Rogers, Leslie Walters, Thomas Zecchin and Jayme Butler
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology December 2009, 37 (4) 233-239; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.109.063644

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • FIGURE 1. 
    FIGURE 1. 

    Box plot comparing median and distribution of SDS for FBP and WBR. Data indicated no difference between 2 distributions (F = 0.91; P = 0.3421). Whiskers represent 1.5 times the interquartile range. ○ = mild outlier; • = severe outlier.

  • FIGURE 2. 
    FIGURE 2. 

    Box plot comparing median and distribution of left ventricular EF (percentage) for FBP and WBR. Data indicated significant difference between 2 distributions (F = 6.13; P = 0.0157).

  • FIGURE 3. 
    FIGURE 3. 

    Linear regression plot indicating relationship between FBP EF and WBR EF. Equation describing plot was as follows: FBP EF = 2.1243 + (1.0666 × WBR EF).

  • FIGURE 4. 
    FIGURE 4. 

    Myocardial images in short-axis (left), vertical long-axis (middle), and horizontal long-axis (right) orientations showing normal radiopharmaceutical distribution with WBR techniques (A), normal radiopharmaceutical distribution with FBP techniques (B), abnormal radiopharmaceutical distribution with WBR techniques (C), and abnormal radiopharmaceutical distribution with FBP techniques (D).

Tables

  • TABLE 1

    Descriptive Statistics for Image Interpretation Parameters for FBP and WBR

    Ranking
    Reconstruction method (no. of studies)Image interpretation parameterRangeMeanSDMedian
    FBP (42)Image quality1–52.0480.85062
    Myocardial normality1–52.3811.4972
    Lesion reversibility1–52.0951.3531
    Treatment recommendation1–31.7780.90601
    WBR (42)Image quality1–51.8410.78712
    Myocardial normality1–52.4291.5002
    Lesion reversibility1–52.2381.5001
    Treatment recommendation1–31.7620.91081
  • TABLE 2

    Paired Statistics from Repeated-Measures ANOVA and Pearson Correlation Coefficients for SSS, SRS, SDS, EDV, ESV, and Percentage EF by Reconstruction Method (FBP or WBR)

    Reconstruction methodVariable analyzedNo. of studies*MeanSEFPPearson r
    FBPSSS422.9250.88820.840.36280.8618†
    WBRSSS424.0750.8883
    FBPSRS420.5250.26110.160.68570.7999†
    WBRSRS420.6750.2613
    FBPSDS422.3250.73970.910.34210.8755†
    WBRSDS423.3250.7398
    FBPEDV3667.73.51476.64‡0.01210.8269†
    WBREDV3680.53.5141
    FBPESV3628.52.56596.69‡0.01180.8755†
    WBRESV3637.92.5661
    FBP% EF3659.971.62286.13‡0.01570.8747†
    WBR% EF3654.061.3309

    • ↵* Numbers of studies in quantitative and volumetric analyses differed because gating during stress acquisition was not used for 6 patients.

    • ↵† Significant correlation between FBP and WBR at 0.05 level.

    • ↵‡ Significant difference between FBP and WBR at 0.05 level.

Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Bookmark this article

Jump to section