Quantitative gated SPECT: the effect of reconstruction filter on calculated left ventricular ejection fractions and volumes

Wright, Graham A.; McDade, M.; Martin, William J.; Hutton, I.

doi:10.1088/0031-9155/47/8/402

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The parameters of both these reconstruction methods can modify the quantitative results of myocardial perfusion imaging (e.g., the LVEF) (4,7,10,11,29).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of Reconstruction Parameters During Filtered Backprojection and Ordered-Subset Expectation Maximization in the Measurement of the Left-Ventricular Volumes and Function During Gated SPECT

Duarte

Monteiro²,

Hakmaoui³

et al. 2012

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A crucial method for investigating patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is the calculation of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). It is, consequently, imperative to precisely estimate the value of LVEF-a process that can be done with myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Therefore, the present study aimed to establish and compare the estimation performance of the quantitative parameters of the reconstruction methods filtered backprojection (FBP) and ordered-subset expectation maximization (OSEM). Methods: A beating-heart phantom with known values of end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and LVEF was used. Quantitative gated SPECT/quantitative perfusion SPECT software was used to obtain these quantitative parameters in a semiautomatic mode. The Butterworth filter was used in FBP, with the cutoff frequencies between 0.2 and 0.8 cycles per pixel combined with the orders of 5, 10, 15, and 20. Sixty-three reconstructions were performed using 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 16 OSEM subsets, combined with several iterations: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 32, and 64. Results: With FBP, the values of end-diastolic, end-systolic, and the stroke volumes rise as the cutoff frequency increases, whereas the value of LVEF diminishes. This same pattern is verified with the OSEM reconstruction. However, with OSEM there is a more precise estimation of the quantitative parameters, especially with the combinations 2 iterations · 10 subsets and 2 iterations · 12 subsets. Conclusion: The OSEM reconstruction presents better estimations of the quantitative parameters than does FBP. This study recommends the use of 2 iterations with 10 or 12 subsets for OSEM and a cutoff frequency of 0.5 cycles per pixel with the orders 5, 10, or 15 for FBP as the best estimations for the left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction quantification in myocardial perfusion scintigraphy.

show abstract

“…The parameters of both these reconstruction methods can modify the quantitative results of myocardial perfusion imaging (e.g., the LVEF) (4,7,10,11,29).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gated SPECT permits, in fact, the determination of global and regional function of the left ventricle (4,6,(10)(11)(12); however, the measurement of LV quantitative param-eters is dependent on endocardial surface detection by the reconstruction algorithms (4,5,9,11,13).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Reconstruction Parameters During Filtered Backprojection and Ordered-Subset Expectation Maximization in the Measurement of the Left-Ventricular Volumes and Function During Gated SPECT

Duarte

Monteiro²,

Hakmaoui³

et al. 2012

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are many technical factors in QGS that influence LV volumes, including the order and critical frequency of the Butterworth filter [1], selection of a reconstruction filter [31], myocardial count density [20], extracardiac background activity [32], matrix size for acquisition [20], zoom factor [33], extent and severity of perfusion defects [7], heart size [33] and radiopharmaceuticals [34]. The present study was a meta-analysis and each factor could not be standardised; however, each effect seems to have been averaged out across individuals from the various studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by quantitative gated SPET, contrast ventriculography and magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis

Kondo

Fukui

Kusakabe

2003

Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All previous validation studies of quantitative gated single-photon emission tomography (QGS) have examined relatively few patients, and the accuracy of QGS thus remains uncertain. We performed a meta-analysis of data from 301 participants in ten studies that compared QGS using technetium-99m-labelled tracers with contrast left ventriculography (LVG), and from 112 participants in six studies that compared QGS with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses were used to evaluate pooled data from individuals across the studies. The correlation between QGS and LVG for end-diastolic volume (EDV) (r=0.81, SEE=27 ml), end-systolic volume (ESV) (r=0.83, SEE=18 ml) and ejection fraction (EF) (r=0.79, SEE=8.3%) was good, as was that between QGS and MRI for EDV (r=0.87, SEE=34 ml), ESV (r=0.89, SEE=27 ml) and EF (r=0.88, SEE=7.2%). However, Bland-Altman plots indicated that LVG minus QGS differences for EDV generated a systematic and random error of 32+/-58 ml (mean+/-2SD), and that MRI minus QGS generated an error of 13+/-73 ml. In the subgroup of patients in whom ECG gating was set at eight intervals, QGS significantly underestimated EF by 7.6%+/-17.4% (mean+/-2SD) compared with LVG and by 6.3%+/-14.6% compared with MRI; no such underestimation was observed in the subgroup in whom ECG gating was set at 16 intervals. We conclude that in patients with ECG gating set at eight intervals, QGS systematically underestimates LV volumes and EF compared with both LVG and MRI. Since QGS also shows considerable variations around the systematic deviations, there remains uncertainty over whether an individual value determined with QGS approximates the true LV volumes and EF.

show abstract

“…LV volume measurement may also be affected by reconstruction parameters (22), filtering and zooming (23), and absolute ventricular size (24). Clinical and simulation studies have previously reported an underestimation of LV volume, especially in small hearts (23,25).…”

Section: Global LV Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Left Ventricular Function Assessment Using 2 Different Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride Cameras Compared with a γ-Camera with Cardiofocal Collimators: Dynamic Cardiac Phantom Study and Clinical Validation

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared two SPECT cameras with cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) detectors to a conventional Anger camera with cardiofocal collimators for the assessment of left ventricular (LV) function in a phantom and patients. Methods: A gated dynamic cardiac phantom was used. Eighteen acquisitions were processed on each CZT camera and the conventional camera. The total number of counts within a myocardial volume of interest varied from 0.25 kcts to 1.5 Mcts. Ejection fraction was set to 33%, 45%, or 60%. Volume, LV ejection fraction (LVEF), regional wall thickening, and motion (17-segment model) were assessed. One hundred twenty patients with a low pretest likelihood of coronary artery disease and normal findings on stress perfusion SPECT were retrospectively analyzed to provide the reference limits for end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), ejection fraction, and regional function for each camera model. Results: In the phantom study, for each ejection fraction value, volume was higher for the CZT cameras than for the conventional camera, resulting in a decreased but more accurate LVEF (all P , 0.001). In clinical data, body-surface-indexed EDV and ESV (mL/m 2 ) were higher for one of the CZT cameras (Discovery NM 530c) than for the other (D-SPECT) or the conventional camera (respectively, 40.5 ± 9.2, 37 ± 7.9, and 35.8 ± 6.8 for EDV [P , 0.001] and 12.5 ± 5.3, 9.4 ± 4.2, and 8.3 ± 4.4 for ESV [P , 0.001]), resulting in a significantly decreased LVEF: 70.3% ± 9.1% vs. 75.2% ± 8.1% vs. 77.8% ± 9.3%, respectively (P , 0.001). Conclusion: The new CZT cameras yielded global LV function results different from those yielded by the conventional camera. LV volume was higher for the Discovery NM 530c than for the D-SPECT or the conventional camera, leading to decreased LVEF in healthy subjects. These differences should be considered in clinical practice and warrant the collection of a specific reference database.

show abstract

Quantitative gated SPECT: the effect of reconstruction filter on calculated left ventricular ejection fractions and volumes

Cited by 16 publications

References 11 publications

Influence of Reconstruction Parameters During Filtered Backprojection and Ordered-Subset Expectation Maximization in the Measurement of the Left-Ventricular Volumes and Function During Gated SPECT

Influence of Reconstruction Parameters During Filtered Backprojection and Ordered-Subset Expectation Maximization in the Measurement of the Left-Ventricular Volumes and Function During Gated SPECT

Measurement of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by quantitative gated SPET, contrast ventriculography and magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis

Left Ventricular Function Assessment Using 2 Different Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride Cameras Compared with a γ-Camera with Cardiofocal Collimators: Dynamic Cardiac Phantom Study and Clinical Validation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About