Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare quantitative ECG-gated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (QGS) and model-based ECG-gated single-photon emission computed tomography (MBGS) for determination of end-diastolic cardiac volume (EDV), end-systolic cardiac volume (ESV), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The accuracy of both methods was evaluated by measurements obtained from contrast left ventriculography (LVG).
Methods: Forty-five patients (40 male, age: 55+/-11 years) with coronary artery disease were studied by angiography and ECG-gated SPECT using technetium-99m-sestamibi for the evaluation of myocardial perfusion and LVEF. Short axis SPECT images were analyzed by QGS and MBGS to estimate endocardial and epicardial surfaces and to derive EDV, ESV, and LVEF.
Results: EDV by gated SPECT (QGS: 187+/-71 ml; MBGS: 191+/-76 ml) were lower than corresponding values by LVG (203+/-59 ml), whereas ESV by gated SPECT (QGS: 121+/-62 ml; MBGS: 108+/-54 ml) were higher than by LVG (105+/-49 ml). Thus, LVEFs by gated SPECT (QGS: 39+/-12%; MBGS: 45+/-9%) were significantly lower than by LVG (50+/-15%). LVEF by MBGS was significantly higher than by QGS (P<0.05). A significant correlation was observed among QGS, MBGS, and LVG for the calculation of EDV, ESV, and LVEF.
Conclusion: Measurements of LV volumes and LVEF by QGS and MBGS showed close agreement with each other and with results from LVG. However, both methods measure lower values for EDV and higher values for ESV and thus underestimate LVEF compared with LVG.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e3283294d19 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!