The consequences of a new software package for the quantification of gated-SPECT myocardial perfusion studies.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;
37:1736-44. [PMID:
20503046 PMCID:
PMC2918795 DOI:
10.1007/s00259-010-1465-6]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2009] [Accepted: 03/29/2010] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
Purpose
Semiquantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) has reduced inter- and intraobserver variability, and enables researchers to compare parameters in the same patient over time, or between groups of patients. There are several software packages available that are designed to process MPS data and quantify parameters. In this study the performances of two systems, quantitative gated SPECT (QGS) and 4D-MSPECT, in the processing of clinical patient data and phantom data were compared.
Methods
The clinical MPS data of 148 consecutive patients were analysed using QGS and 4D-MSPECT to determine the end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume and left ventricular ejection fraction. Patients were divided into groups based on gender, body mass index, heart size, stressor type and defect type. The AGATE dynamic heart phantom was used to provide reference values for the left ventricular ejection fraction.
Results
Although the correlations were excellent (correlation coefficients 0.886 to 0.980) for all parameters, significant differences (p < 0.001) were found between the systems. Bland-Altman plots indicated that 4D-MSPECT provided overall higher values of all parameters than QGS. These differences between the systems were not significant in patients with a small heart (end-diastolic volume <70 ml). Other clinical factors had no direct influence on the relationship. Additionally, the phantom data indicated good linear responses of both systems.
Conclusion
The discrepancies between these software packages were clinically relevant, and influenced by heart size. The possibility of such discrepancies should be taken into account when a new quantitative software system is introduced, or when multiple software systems are used in the same institution.
Collapse