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: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
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
Background: ECG-gated rest-stress cardiac PET can lead to simultaneous quantification of both left ventricular ejection fraction and flow impairment. In this study, our aim was to assess the benefit of rest and stress PET ejection fraction (EF) (EFp) in relation to single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) EF (EFs) and echocardiography EF (EFe). To this effect, the EFp was compared with EFs and EFe. Further, the relation between rest and stress EFp was also assessed.
Methods: ECG-gated N-13 ammonia rest and stress PET imaging was performed in 26 patients. EFp values were obtained using gated reconstruction of the data in Flowquant. In 13 patients, EFs and EFe values were obtained through chart review. Correlation, analysis of variance, and Bland-Altman analyses were performed. P values less than 0.05 were used for statistical significance.
Results: The rest and stress EFp values correlated significantly (r=0.80 and 0.71, respectively; P<0.05) with EFs values. There was moderate correlation with statistical significance (P<0.05) between the rest and stress EFp and EFe values (r=0.58 and 0.50, respectively). The mean rest and stress EFp values were not significantly different from mean EFs values. Also, the rest EFp and stress EFp values correlated well (r=0.81, P<0.05) and were not significantly different. Bland-Altman analysis showed no significant bias between the rest and stress EFp, and EFs, and EFe values.
Conclusion: Rest and stress EFp values obtained through an ECG-gated PET scan can be used for clinical diagnosis in place of conventional methods like SPECT and echocardiography.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000000352 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!