A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 144

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 144
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 212
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3106
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

The agreement of left ventricular function parameters between (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin gated myocardial SPECT and gated myocardial MRI. | LitMetric

Objective: The aim is to compare and evaluate the agreement of quantification of left ventricular functional parameters obtained by two different methods, (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin gated myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR).

Methods: Ten healthy male volunteers participated. Gated MPS data were acquired using 32 frames, which were also combined into 16- and 8-frame data set for the investigation. Gated CMR data were acquired using 8, 16 and 32-frame for the different sets. All examinations were conducted in resting and at exercise conditions. Quantitative measurements of end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), peak ejection rate (PER), peak filling rate (PFR) and time to peak filling (TTPF) were done for each study, respectively. Finally, we evaluated the concordance of parameters between gated MPS and gated CMR by % difference and Bland-Altman plot analysis.

Results: LVEF showed favorable concordance in both rest and exercise conditions (% differences were around 10%). PER, PFR and TTPF also showed good concordances in rest conditions, under 32-frame gated collections particularly (% differences were around 10%). In exercise conditions, although the concordances were relatively good, certain variances were noted (% differences were around 20-25%). Regarding left ventricular volumes, the concordance were worse in both conditions (% differences were around 30-40%).

Conclusions: In quantifying of left ventricular function parameter, gated CMR provides similar quantitative values comparing with gated MPS except for ventricular volumes in rest conditions. In contrast, there were certain variations except for LVEF in exercised examinations. When we follow patients by the same cardiac parameters with CMR and MPS, using parameters across the two modalities proved to be possible under rest condition. However, it is limited at exercise condition.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12149-011-0546-3DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

left ventricular
20
gated myocardial
12
gated mps
12
gated cmr
12
exercise conditions
12
gated
10
ventricular function
8
99mtc-tetrofosmin gated
8
data acquired
8
peak filling
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!