›› 2018, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (11): 1337-.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2018.11.012

• Original article (Clinical research) • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comparison of quantitative analysis between QGS and ECTb software programs used in gated myocardial perfusion imaging

SONG Jie-ping, SHOU Yi, JIANG Jian-jun, YOU Zhi-wen, MENG Qing-yuan, ZHAO Jun   

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, East Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai 200120, China
  • Online:2018-11-28 Published:2018-12-15
  • Supported by:
    Key Specialty Construction Project of Pudong Health and Family Planning Commission of Shanghai, PWZzk2017-24

Abstract: Objective · To study the differences and correlations of quantitative analysis between Cedars-Sinai quantitative gated SPECT (QGS) and Emory cardiac toolbox (ECTb) used in single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) gated myocardial perfusion imaging (G-MPI). Methods · A total of 28 patients were examined with 99mTc-methoxyisobutylisonitrile (99mTc-MIBI) SPECT G-MPI. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), phase histogram bandwidth (PHB) and phase standard deviation (PSD) were calculated with QGS and ECTb. The correlations and differences of the results these two programs were analyzed. Results · These two software programs showed high correlation for LVEF, EDV and ESV (LVEF: r0.917, P0.000. EDV: r0.976, P0.000. ESV: r0.981, P0.000). The analysis showed no significant correlation for PHB and PSD (PHB: r0.319, P0.055. PSD: r0.172, P0.310). In the analysis of cardiac function, the ESV measuredQGS was higher than that measuredECTb, and the EDV and LVEF were lower than those measuredECTb. In the phase analysis, the PSD and PHB measuredQGS were lower than those measuredECTb. These differences between the results measuredthe two software programs were not consistency. There were significant differences in LVEF, ESV and PSD in the comparison of QGS and ECTb [LVEF: (47.8±16.9)% vs (57.4±17.2)%, P0.000. ESV: (67.5±51.0) mL vs (58.3±50.0) mL, P0.000. PSD: 20.5o±10.3o vs 30.6o±18.9o, P 0.004]. The EDV and PHB showed no significant difference between the QGS and ECTb [EDV: (116.8±52.8) mL vs (120.8±55.7) mL, P0.050. PHB: 72.2o±37.0o vs 86.1o±55.7o, P0.139]. Conclusion · These two software programs have good consistency in quantitative analysis of cardiac function. But the result shows no significant consistent in the evaluation of left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony. There are differences between the data measuredQGS and ECTb. Using the results measuredthe two software programs for direct comparison may be not suiin clinical applications. The differences between these two software programs indicate that it may be necessary to establish a normal databases in clinical work based on the local conditions.

Key words: gated myocardial perfusion imaging, quantitative analysis, software, cardiac function

CLC Number: