4.2 Article

Reducing the small-heart effect in pediatric gated myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 1378-1388

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12350-016-0518-z

Keywords

Ejection fraction; small-heart effect; resolution correction; quantitative gated SPECT; cardioREPO

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26461846] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. We compared two reconstruction algorisms and two cardiac functional evaluation software programs in terms of their accuracy for estimating ejection fraction (EF) of small hearts (SH). Methods. The study group consisted of 66 pediatric patients. Data were reconstructed using a filtered back projection (FBP) method without the resolution correction (RC) and an iterative method based on an ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm with the RC. EF was evaluated using two software programs of quantitative gated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (QGS) and cardioREPO. We compared the EF of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT to echocardiographic measurement (Echo). Results. Forty-eight of 66 patients had an end-systolic volume < 20 mL which was used as the criterion for being included in the SH group, and the SH effect led to an overestimation of EF. While significant differences were observed between Echo (66.9 +/- 5.0%) and QGS-FBP without RC (76.9 +/- 8.4%, P < .0001), QGS-OSEM with RC (76.6 +/- 8.6%, P < .0001), and cardioREPO-FBP without RC (72.1 +/- 10.0%, P = .0011), no significant difference was observed between Echo and cardioREPO-OSEM with RC (67.4 +/- 6.1%) in SH group. Conclusions. In pediatric gated myocardial perfusion SPECT, the SH effect can be significantly reduced when an OSEM algorithm is used with RC in combination with the specific cardioREPO algorithm.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available