Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportCardiovascular

Gated blood pool SPECT: QBS software performs better with iterative reconstruction than filtered backprojection

Doumit Daou, Owais Kotbi, Emanuele Siano and Carlos Coaguila
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2013, 54 (supplement 2) 1727;
Doumit Daou
1Nuclear Medicine, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Owais Kotbi
1Nuclear Medicine, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emanuele Siano
1Nuclear Medicine, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carlos Coaguila
2Nuclear Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Sud Francilien, Corbeil-Essonnes, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

1727

Objectives The performances of QBS software (Cedars Sinai) for the quantification of cardiac function with Gated blood pool SPECT (GSPECT RNA) radionuclide angiography (RNA) are better with iterative reconstruction combined to resolution recovery (3D-Flash) as compared to filtered backprojection reconstruction (FBP). In this study, we aim to compare its performance when using iterative reconstruction (OSEM) without resolution recovery versus FBP for the measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Methods The study included 140 patient addressed for LV function evaluation with planar (left anterior oblique view, planarLAO) and GSPECT RNA. GSPECT RNA studies were reconstructed using both FBP and OSEM and then processed with QBS software. For each of the 2 reconstruction methods, the 3 different LVEF values provided by QBS were noted: LVEF_actratio (ratio of activities of maximal activity threshold - MAT method), LVEF_volratio (ratio of LV volumes of MAT method), and LVEF_Gd (gradient method). PlanarLAO LVEF was considered gold standard.

Results LVEF provided by planarLAO (58±10%) is significantly lower (P<0.01) than GSPECT RNA LVEF_actratio_OSEM (70±15%), LVEF_actratio_FBP (70±15%), LVEF_Gd_OSEM (63±14%), and LVEF_Gd_FBP (62±14%). But it is not different (P>0.05) from LVEF_volratio_OSEM (60±14) and LVEF_volratio_FBP (59±14%). PlanarLAO LVEF is highly correlated to both OSEM and FBP GSPECT RNA LVEF (P <0.0001): LVEF_actratio_OSEM (r=0.78), LVEF_volratio_OSEM (r=0.77), LVEF_Gd_OSEM (r=0.78), LVEF_actratio_FBP (r=0.74), LVEF_volratio_FBP (r=0.72), LVEF_Gd_FBP (r=0.73). Note all correlations are slightly higher with OSEM than with FBP. On Bland Altman analysis, the limits of agreement were slightly tighter with OSEM than with FBP versus planarLAO: -11.3±18.3% and -11.3±19.8% for LVEF_actratio , -1.5±17.1% and -0.4±19.1% for LVEF_volratio_FBP, and -4.5±17.5% and -3.1±19.4% for LVEF_Gd_FBP, respectively.

Conclusions QBS performances seem better when using OSEM than FBP reconstruction.

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 54, Issue supplement 2
May 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Gated blood pool SPECT: QBS software performs better with iterative reconstruction than filtered backprojection
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Gated blood pool SPECT: QBS software performs better with iterative reconstruction than filtered backprojection
Doumit Daou, Owais Kotbi, Emanuele Siano, Carlos Coaguila
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2013, 54 (supplement 2) 1727;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Gated blood pool SPECT: QBS software performs better with iterative reconstruction than filtered backprojection
Doumit Daou, Owais Kotbi, Emanuele Siano, Carlos Coaguila
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2013, 54 (supplement 2) 1727;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Cardiovascular

  • Calculating splenic switch-off during rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion imaging to predict serum caffeine using average versus maximum concentration measurements.
  • Cardiac β-Adrenergic Receptor Downregulation, Evaluated by Cardiac PET, in Chronotropic Incompetence
  • Diagnostic Performance of PET Versus SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Patients with Smaller Left Ventricles: A Substudy of the 18F-Flurpiridaz Phase III Clinical Trial
Show more Cardiovascular

MTA II: Cardiovascular (Clinical) Posters

  • Dependency of Rb-82 normal distribution on PET camera and processing
  • Prognostic value of simultaneous myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and coronary calcium score (CCS) assessment in patients with intermediate likelihood of CAD: A 5-year follow-up study
  • Reproducibility of left ventricular ejection fractions using PET blood flow and metabolism tracers: Rb-82, N-13-ammonia and F-18-FDG
Show more MTA II: Cardiovascular (Clinical) Posters

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire