We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Validation Studies
Comparison of gated blood pool SPECT and multi-detector row computed tomography for measurements of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction in patients with atypical chest pain: validation with radionuclide ventriculography.
Cardiology 2007
UNLABELLED: Gated blood pool SPECT (GBPS) is an alternative to planar radionuclide ventriculography (PRNV) and offers potential advantages. The aim of this study was to compare GBPS, multi-row detector spiral computed tomography (MDCT), and PRNV for the determination of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular volumes (LV) in subjects with atypical chest pain.
METHOD: Twenty-three consecutive patients (14 men, 9 women; mean age 56.2 +/- 9.5 years) referred for MDCT for evaluation of atypical chest pain. All patients underwent PRNV, GBPS, and MDCT at the same day.
RESULTS: The mean LVEFs calculated with PRNA (57.3 +/- 8.6%), GBPS (55.2 +/- 6.6%), and MDCT (56 +/- 9.1%) were not statistically different (F value 0.3374, p = 0.715). Comparison of LVEFs from GBPS and MDCT yielded correlation coefficients of 0.5238 (p = 0.0178, 95% CI = 0.1057-0.7845). The correlation of LVEFs between GBPS and PRNV showed a correlation coefficient of 0.8073 (p < 0.0001, 95% CI = 0.5676-0.9209) and 0.6190 (p = 0.0036, 95% CI = 0.2431-0.8333) between MDCT and PRNV. The mean LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) calculated with GBPS (82.7 +/- 17.5 ml) was significantly lower than MDCT (106.8 +/- 18.5 ml) (p = 0.0001). The mean LV end-systolic volume (ESV) calculated with GBPS (37.2 +/- 9.6 ml) was also significantly lower than MDCT (48.1 +/- 15.8 ml) (p = 0.012). Comparison of EDV from GBPS and MDCT yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.5220 (p = 0.0182, 95% CI = 0.1033-0.7835). The correlation of ESV between GBPS and MDCT showed a correlation coefficient of 0.6642 (p = 0.0014, 95% CI = 0.3140-0.8553).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the LVEF, EDV, and ESV calculated by GBPS correlated significantly with those of obtained with 16-MDCT. In addition, there were no statistical differences of LVEF calculated from PRNV, GBPS, and MDCT. However, with regard to LV, EDV and ESV from GBPS revealed statistically significantly lower than those of MDCT. Also, these results should be addressed whether similar results could also be found in patients with cardiac diseases by the consequent larger population-based study.
METHOD: Twenty-three consecutive patients (14 men, 9 women; mean age 56.2 +/- 9.5 years) referred for MDCT for evaluation of atypical chest pain. All patients underwent PRNV, GBPS, and MDCT at the same day.
RESULTS: The mean LVEFs calculated with PRNA (57.3 +/- 8.6%), GBPS (55.2 +/- 6.6%), and MDCT (56 +/- 9.1%) were not statistically different (F value 0.3374, p = 0.715). Comparison of LVEFs from GBPS and MDCT yielded correlation coefficients of 0.5238 (p = 0.0178, 95% CI = 0.1057-0.7845). The correlation of LVEFs between GBPS and PRNV showed a correlation coefficient of 0.8073 (p < 0.0001, 95% CI = 0.5676-0.9209) and 0.6190 (p = 0.0036, 95% CI = 0.2431-0.8333) between MDCT and PRNV. The mean LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) calculated with GBPS (82.7 +/- 17.5 ml) was significantly lower than MDCT (106.8 +/- 18.5 ml) (p = 0.0001). The mean LV end-systolic volume (ESV) calculated with GBPS (37.2 +/- 9.6 ml) was also significantly lower than MDCT (48.1 +/- 15.8 ml) (p = 0.012). Comparison of EDV from GBPS and MDCT yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.5220 (p = 0.0182, 95% CI = 0.1033-0.7835). The correlation of ESV between GBPS and MDCT showed a correlation coefficient of 0.6642 (p = 0.0014, 95% CI = 0.3140-0.8553).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the LVEF, EDV, and ESV calculated by GBPS correlated significantly with those of obtained with 16-MDCT. In addition, there were no statistical differences of LVEF calculated from PRNV, GBPS, and MDCT. However, with regard to LV, EDV and ESV from GBPS revealed statistically significantly lower than those of MDCT. Also, these results should be addressed whether similar results could also be found in patients with cardiac diseases by the consequent larger population-based study.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app