优化智商。SPECT在心肌灌注成像中的应用——与常规SPECT和超声心动图成像的比较

2014 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC) Pub Date : 2014-11-01 DOI:10.1109/NSSMIC.2014.7430861

E. Joel, Y. Bouchareb, A. Haroon, M. Luqman, M. Newell, H. Jan

{"title":"优化智商。SPECT在心肌灌注成像中的应用——与常规SPECT和超声心动图成像的比较","authors":"E. Joel, Y. Bouchareb, A. Haroon, M. Luqman, M. Newell, H. Jan","doi":"10.1109/NSSMIC.2014.7430861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IQ.SPECT technology performs Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (MPI) in less than five minutes compared to conventional 20-25 minute scans. The aim of this study was to optimise the IQ.SPECT reconstruction and compare with conventional MPI scanning and Echocardiography using perfusion and ECG-gated imaging. 18 patients were imaged using IQ.SPECT in addition to conventional SPECT and the IQ.SPECT reconstruction parameters were optimised to produce comparable findings with conventional SPECT. Images were analysed quantitatively using QPS and QGS software and qualitatively by clinician scoring. IQ.SPECT LVEF values were compared to those obtained using conventional MPI and Echocardiography. Optimum reconstruction parameters for perfusion images were found to be: 6 subsets, 6 iterations, with a Gaussian filter cut-off of 8, and for gated images: 3 subsets, 15 iterations with a Gaussian filter cut-off of 10. No significant difference was found between perfusion images from IQ.SPECT and those from conventional SPECT. IQ.SPECT LVEF values differed, on average, by 15% from those using conventional SPECT and by 25% from those using Echocardiography. The disagreement between LVEF values suggests that caution is needed for borderline LVEF.","PeriodicalId":144711,"journal":{"name":"2014 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimisation of IQ.SPECT in Myocardial Perfusion Imaging - comparison with conventional SPECT and Echocardiography imaging\",\"authors\":\"E. Joel, Y. Bouchareb, A. Haroon, M. Luqman, M. Newell, H. Jan\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/NSSMIC.2014.7430861\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"IQ.SPECT technology performs Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (MPI) in less than five minutes compared to conventional 20-25 minute scans. The aim of this study was to optimise the IQ.SPECT reconstruction and compare with conventional MPI scanning and Echocardiography using perfusion and ECG-gated imaging. 18 patients were imaged using IQ.SPECT in addition to conventional SPECT and the IQ.SPECT reconstruction parameters were optimised to produce comparable findings with conventional SPECT. Images were analysed quantitatively using QPS and QGS software and qualitatively by clinician scoring. IQ.SPECT LVEF values were compared to those obtained using conventional MPI and Echocardiography. Optimum reconstruction parameters for perfusion images were found to be: 6 subsets, 6 iterations, with a Gaussian filter cut-off of 8, and for gated images: 3 subsets, 15 iterations with a Gaussian filter cut-off of 10. No significant difference was found between perfusion images from IQ.SPECT and those from conventional SPECT. IQ.SPECT LVEF values differed, on average, by 15% from those using conventional SPECT and by 25% from those using Echocardiography. The disagreement between LVEF values suggests that caution is needed for borderline LVEF.\",\"PeriodicalId\":144711,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2014 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2014 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/NSSMIC.2014.7430861\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2014 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/NSSMIC.2014.7430861","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

智商。与传统的20-25分钟扫描相比，SPECT技术在不到5分钟的时间内完成心肌灌注成像(MPI)。这项研究的目的是优化智商。SPECT重建，并与传统的MPI扫描和超声心动图灌注和ecg门控成像进行比较。18例患者采用IQ成像。SPECT除了常规的SPECT和IQ。SPECT重建参数进行了优化，以产生与常规SPECT相当的结果。采用QPS和QGS软件对图像进行定量分析，通过临床医生评分对图像进行定性分析。智商。比较常规MPI和超声心动图所获得的SPECT LVEF值。灌注图像的最佳重建参数为:6个子集，6次迭代，高斯滤波截止值为8;门控图像的最佳重建参数为:3个子集，15次迭代，高斯滤波截止值为10。IQ灌注图像间无显著差异。SPECT和常规SPECT。智商。SPECT的LVEF值与常规SPECT相比平均相差15%，与超声心动图相比平均相差25%。LVEF值之间的差异表明，对于临界LVEF需要谨慎。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Optimisation of IQ.SPECT in Myocardial Perfusion Imaging - comparison with conventional SPECT and Echocardiography imaging

IQ.SPECT technology performs Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (MPI) in less than five minutes compared to conventional 20-25 minute scans. The aim of this study was to optimise the IQ.SPECT reconstruction and compare with conventional MPI scanning and Echocardiography using perfusion and ECG-gated imaging. 18 patients were imaged using IQ.SPECT in addition to conventional SPECT and the IQ.SPECT reconstruction parameters were optimised to produce comparable findings with conventional SPECT. Images were analysed quantitatively using QPS and QGS software and qualitatively by clinician scoring. IQ.SPECT LVEF values were compared to those obtained using conventional MPI and Echocardiography. Optimum reconstruction parameters for perfusion images were found to be: 6 subsets, 6 iterations, with a Gaussian filter cut-off of 8, and for gated images: 3 subsets, 15 iterations with a Gaussian filter cut-off of 10. No significant difference was found between perfusion images from IQ.SPECT and those from conventional SPECT. IQ.SPECT LVEF values differed, on average, by 15% from those using conventional SPECT and by 25% from those using Echocardiography. The disagreement between LVEF values suggests that caution is needed for borderline LVEF.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

2014 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC)

自引率

0.00%

发文量