Premium
Effect of prone versus supine positioning on left ventricular ejection fraction ( LVEF ) and heart rate using ECG gated Tl ‐201 myocardial perfusion scans and gated cardiac blood pool scans
Author(s) -
Yap Kenneth,
Campbell Patrina,
Cherk Martin,
McGrath Catherine,
Kalff Victor
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.31
H-Index - 43
eISSN - 1754-9485
pISSN - 1754-9477
DOI - 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2012.02438.x
Subject(s) - ejection fraction , medicine , supine position , cardiology , heart rate , perfusion , nuclear medicine , heart failure , blood pressure
There is limited data on the effect of posture on LVEF . The study aim was to determine any difference in LVEF using gated cardiac blood pool scanning ( GCBPS ) and T l ‐201 gated myocardial perfusion scanning ( MPS ) in prone or supine positions. Method In 50 patients undergoing evaluation for varying heart conditions, automated LVEF , end diastolic volume ( EDV ), end systolic volume ( ESV ) measurements were obtained at rest during gated MPS on D iscovery NM 530 c ( GE H ealthcare). In another 50 patients, semi‐automated LVEF measurements were obtained using GCBPS on dual‐headed gamma cameras. Average heart rate ( HR ) was recorded. Differences between prone and supine LVEF , HR , EDV and ESV were compared using paired two‐tailed t ‐tests ( P < 0.05 considered significant). Pearson's correlation, difference plots, mean, standard deviation and 95% confidence interval of the differences were also derived to analyse LVEF results. Results Using GCPBS or MPS , no significant difference in LVEF or LV volumes (from gated MPS ) was demonstrated between postures. Increased HR was noted in prone positioning. Conclusion Posture did not affect measured LVEF or LV volumes. However HR was higher on prone imaging.