Comparison of quantitative analysis between QGS and ECTb software programs used in gated myocardial perfusion imaging
10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2018.11.012
- VernacularTitle: QGS和ECTb软件在门控心肌灌注显像定量分析中的比较
- Author:
Jie-Ping SONG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, East Hospital, Tongji University
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Cardiac function;
Gated myocardial perfusion imaging;
Quantitative analysis;
Software
- From:
Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University(Medical Science)
2018;38(11):1337-1342
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
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 from these two programs were analyzed. Results • These two software programs showed high correlation for LVEF, EDV and ESV (LVEF: r=0.917, P=0.000. EDV: r=0.976, P=0.000. ESV: r=0.981, P=0.000). The analysis showed no significant correlation for PHB and PSD (PHB: r=0.319, P=0.055. PSD: r=0.172, P=0.310). In the analysis of cardiac function, the ESV measured by QGS was higher than that measured by ECTb, and the EDV and LVEF were lower than those measured by ECTb. In the phase analysis, the PSD and PHB measured by QGS were lower than those measured by ECTb. These differences between the results measured by the 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)%, P=0.000. ESV: (67.5±51.0) mL vs (58.3±50.0) mL, P=0.000. 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, P=0.050. PHB: 72.2º±37.0º vs 86.1º±55.7º, P=0.139]. 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 measured by QGS and ECTb. Using the results measured by the two software programs for direct comparison may be not suitable in 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.
