RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Validation of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction with the IQ•SPECT System in Small-Heart Patients
JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
JO J. Nucl. Med. Technol.
FD Society of Nuclear Medicine
SP 201
OP 207
DO 10.2967/jnmt.116.188680
VO 45
IS 3
A1 Hiroto Yoneyama
A1 Takayuki Shibutani
A1 Takahiro Konishi
A1 Asuka Mizutani
A1 Ryosuke Hashimoto
A1 Masahisa Onoguchi
A1 Koichi Okuda
A1 Shinro Matsuo
A1 Kenichi Nakajima
A1 Seigo Kinuya
YR 2017
UL http://tech.snmjournals.org/content/45/3/201.abstract
AB The IQ•SPECT system, which is equipped with multifocal collimators (SMARTZOOM) and uses ordered-subset conjugate gradient minimization as the reconstruction algorithm, reduces the acquisition time of myocardial perfusion imaging compared with conventional SPECT systems equipped with low-energy high-resolution collimators. We compared the IQ•SPECT system with a conventional SPECT system for estimating left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with a small heart (end-systolic volume < 20 mL). Methods: The study consisted of 98 consecutive patients who underwent a 1-d stress–rest myocardial perfusion imaging study with a 99mTc-labeled agent for preoperative risk assessment. Data were reconstructed using filtered backprojection for conventional SPECT and ordered-subset conjugate gradient minimization for IQ•SPECT. End-systolic volume, end-diastolic volume, and LVEF were calculated using quantitative gated SPECT (QGS) and cardioREPO software. We compared the LVEF from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT to that from echocardiographic measurements. Results: End-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and LVEF as obtained from conventional SPECT, IQ•SPECT, and echocardiography showed a good to excellent correlation regardless of whether they were calculated using QGS or using cardioREPO. Although LVEF calculated using QGS significantly differed between conventional SPECT and IQ•SPECT (65.4% ± 13.8% vs. 68.4% ± 15.2%) (P = 0.0002), LVEF calculated using cardioREPO did not (69.5% ± 10.6% vs. 69.5% ± 11.0%). Likewise, although LVEF calculated using QGS significantly differed between conventional SPECT and IQ•SPECT (75.0 ± 9.6 vs. 79.5 ± 8.3) (P = 0.0005), LVEF calculated using cardioREPO did not (72.3% ± 9.0% vs. 74.3% ± 8.3%). Conclusion: In small-heart patients, the difference in LVEF between IQ•SPECT and conventional SPECT was less when calculated using cardioREPO than when calculated using QGS.