PMID- 25698473
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20160411
LR  - 20240130
IS  - 1532-6551 (Electronic)
IS  - 1071-3581 (Linking)
VI  - 22
IP  - 3
DP  - 2015 Jun
TI  - Gated blood pool SPECT: The estimation of right ventricular volume and function 
      is algorithm dependent in a clinical setting.
PG  - 483-92
LID - 10.1007/s12350-014-0062-7 [doi]
AB  - BACKGROUND: Gated blood pool SPECT (GBPS) requires further validation for the 
      assessment of the right ventricle (RV). This study evaluated three algorithms: 
      BP-SPECT, QBS, and TOMPOOL (results are referred using this order). We compared 
      (1) their "quantitative-accuracy": estimation of RV ejection fraction (EF), 
      end-diastolic volume (EDV), and cardiac output (CO); (2) their 
      "qualitative-accuracy": threshold values allowing diagnosing an impairment of the 
      RV function; (3) their reproducibility: inter-observer relative variability 
      (IOV). METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-eight consecutive patients underwent GBPS. 
      Recommended reference standards were used: cardiac magnetic resonance imaging 
      (CMR) (EDV, EF, n = 48), catheter measurements from thermodilution (TD) (CO, 
      n = 25). (1) "Quantitative-accuracy": r = 0.42, 0.30, 0.42 for RVEF (CMR); 
      r = 0.69, 0.77, 0.53 for RVEDV (CMR); 0.32, 0.36, 0.52 for RCO (TD). (2) 
      "Qualitative-accuracy": optimal thresholds were 54.7%, 38.5%, 45.2% (AUC: 0.83, 
      0.80, 0.79) for RVEF; 229, 180, 94 mL (AUC: 0.83, 0.81, 0.81) for RVEDV; 4.1, 
      4.4, 2.6 L.minute(-1) (AUC: 0.73, 0.77, 0.80) for RCO. (3) Reproducibility: IOV 
      was 5% +/- 6%, 8% +/- 12%, 17% +/- 18% for RVEF; 6% +/- 8%, 4% +/- 4%, 21% +/- 18% for RVEDV; 
      8% +/- 8%, 11% +/- 15%, 24% +/- 20% for RCO. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic accuracies are 
      similar. A CMR-based calibration is required for a quantitative-analysis 
      (cautious interpretation) or an accurate qualitative analysis (thresholds must be 
      adjusted). Automatic procedures (BP-SPECT, QBS) offer the best compromise 
      accuracy/reproducibility.
FAU - Dercle, Laurent
AU  - Dercle L
AD  - Department of Nuclear Medicine, Toulouse University Hospital, 1, avenue Jean 
      Poulhes, TSA 50032, 31059, Toulouse Cedex 9, France, laurent.dercle@gmail.com.
FAU - Ouali, Monia
AU  - Ouali M
FAU - Pascal, Pierre
AU  - Pascal P
FAU - Giraudmaillet, Thomas
AU  - Giraudmaillet T
FAU - Chisin, Roland
AU  - Chisin R
FAU - Lairez, Olivier
AU  - Lairez O
FAU - Marachet, Marie-Agnes
AU  - Marachet MA
FAU - Rousseau, Herve
AU  - Rousseau H
FAU - Bastie, Delphine
AU  - Bastie D
FAU - Bouallegue, Faycal Ben
AU  - Bouallegue FB
FAU - Berry, Isabelle
AU  - Berry I
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20150220
PL  - United States
TA  - J Nucl Cardiol
JT  - Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of 
      Nuclear Cardiology
JID - 9423534
SB  - IM
CIN - J Nucl Cardiol. 2015 Jun;22(3):493-5. PMID: 25795395
MH  - Adult
MH  - Aged
MH  - Algorithms
MH  - Automation
MH  - Diastole
MH  - Female
MH  - *Gated Blood-Pool Imaging
MH  - Heart Ventricles/*diagnostic imaging
MH  - Humans
MH  - Magnetic Resonance Imaging
MH  - Male
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - Observer Variation
MH  - Prospective Studies
MH  - Reference Standards
MH  - Reproducibility of Results
MH  - Sensitivity and Specificity
MH  - Thermodilution
MH  - *Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon
MH  - Ventricular Dysfunction, Right/diagnostic imaging
EDAT- 2015/02/24 06:00
MHDA- 2016/04/12 06:00
CRDT- 2015/02/21 06:00
PHST- 2014/10/29 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2014/12/13 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2015/02/21 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2015/02/24 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2016/04/12 06:00 [medline]
AID - S1071-3581(23)07086-1 [pii]
AID - 10.1007/s12350-014-0062-7 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Nucl Cardiol. 2015 Jun;22(3):483-92. doi: 10.1007/s12350-014-0062-7. Epub 2015 
      Feb 20.