z-logo
Premium
SU‐FF‐I‐108: Estimation of Ejection Fractions by Three Quantitative Gated SPECT Software Packages
Author(s) -
Tiapetch O,
Tocharoenchai C
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.2760485
Subject(s) - ejection fraction , mathematics , nuclear medicine , expectation–maximization algorithm , algorithm , gated spect , coronary artery disease , medicine , statistics , maximum likelihood , heart failure
Purpose: To investigate the accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) estimated from three quantitative gated SPECT software packages, using echocardiography as a gold standard and the reliability of LVEF from ordered subset expectation maximization (OS‐EM). Method and Materials: Seventy patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) were examined with gated 99m Tc‐MIBI SPECT (8 frames/cardiac cycle) at stress. The projection datasets were reconstructed using OS‐EM with 8 angles/subset. The data were smoothed with Gaussian filter with FWHM of 8 pixel width. The iteration numbers were varied for each software: 3 iterations for quantitative gated SPECT (QGS), 5 iterations for the Emory cardiac toolbox (ECTb), and 4 iterations for 4D‐MSPECT. The LVEFs were calculated using these 3 quantitative software packages. To test reliability of LVEF from OS‐EM, the same patient data were again reconstructed using filtered backprojection (FBP) with post‐filtering of Butterworth 5 th order, 0.3 cycles/pixel cutoff frequency. A two tailed pair t‐test was used to test the statistically significant difference with p‐value < 0.05. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in LVEFs for all three software packages from echocardiography with p > 0.05. The correlation between LVEF in each pair of package was high (r > 0.9). The LVEFs from OS‐EM were not statistically significantly different from that from FBP (p > 0.05) for QGS and 4D‐MSPECT, but for ECTb, there was a statistically significant difference. The LVEF from OS‐EM correlated well with that from FBP (r >0.9). Conclusion: The LVEF estimated from each software package had different characteristics and the LVEF from OS‐EM was reliable.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here