HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JNM Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by De Bondt, P. Articles by Dierckx, R. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by De Bondt, P. Articles by Dierckx, R. A.

Accuracy of 4 Different Algorithms for the Analysis of Tomographic Radionuclide Ventriculography Using a Physical, Dynamic 4-Chamber Cardiac Phantom

¹ Division of Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
² Division of Nuclear Medicine, OLV Hospital, Aalst, Belgium
³ Hydraulics Laboratory, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Various automatic algorithms are now being developed to calculate left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) ejection fraction from tomographic radionuclide ventriculography. We tested the performance of 4 of these algorithms in estimating LV and RV volume and ejection fraction using a dynamic 4-chamber cardiac phantom. Methods: We developed a realistic physical, dynamic 4-chamber cardiac phantom and acquired 25 tomographic radionuclide ventriculography images within a wide range of end-diastolic volumes, end-systolic volumes, and stroke volumes. We assessed the ability of 4 algorithms (QBS, QUBE, 4D-MSPECT, and BP-SPECT) to calculate LV and RV volume and ejection fraction. Results: For the left ventricle, the correlations between reference and estimated volumes (0.93, 0.93, 0.96, and 0.93 for QBS, QUBE, 4D-MSPECT, and BP-SPECT, respectively; all with P < 0.001) and ejection fractions (0.90, 0.93, 0.88, and 0.92, respectively; all with P < 0.001) were good, although all algorithms underestimated the volumes (mean difference [±2 SDs] from Bland–Altman analysis: –39.83 ± 43.12 mL, –33.39 ± 38.12 mL, –33.29 ± 40.70 mL, and –16.61 ± 39.64 mL, respectively). The underestimation by QBS, QUBE, and 4D-MSPECT was greater for higher volumes. QBS, QUBE, and BP-SPECT could also be tested for the right ventricle. Correlations were good for the volumes (0.93, 0.95, and 0.97 for QBS, QUBE, and BP-SPECT, respectively; all with P < 0.001). In terms of absolute volume estimation, the mean differences (±2 SDs) from Bland–Altman analysis were –41.28 ± 43.66 mL, 11.13 ± 49.26 mL, and –13.11 ± 28.20 mL, respectively. Calculation of RV ejection fraction correlated well with true values (0.84, 0.92, and 0.94, respectively; all with P < 0.001), although an overestimation was seen for higher ejection fractions. Conclusion: Calculation of LV and RV ejection fraction based on tomographic radionuclide ventriculography was accurate for all tested algorithms. All algorithms underestimated LV volume; estimation of RV volume seemed more difficult, with different results for each algorithm. The more irregular shape and inclusion of a relatively hypokinetic RV outflow tract in the right ventricle seemed to cause the greater difficulty with delineation of the right ventricle, compared with the left ventricle.

Key Words: dynamic cardiac model • tomographic radionuclide angiography • validation

Related articles in JNM:

THIS MONTH IN JNM

JNM 2005 46: 8a-9a. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. S. Lin, H. H. Hines, G. Grant, K. Taylor, and C. Ryals Automated Quantification of Myocardial Ischemia and Wall Motion Defects by Use of Cardiac SPECT Polar Mapping and 4-Dimensional Surface Rendering. J. Nucl. Med. Technol., March 1, 2006; 34(1): 3 - 17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]