Trial reportJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology
Gated SPECT assessment of left ventricular function is sensitive to small patient motions and to low rates of triggering errors: a comparison with equilibrium radionuclide angiography.
Trial report in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Left ventricular ejection fraction determined with the simulation of a very low-dose CZT-SPECT protocol and an additional count-calibration on planar radionuclide angiographic data.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019Article
- Motion correction and myocardial perfusion SPECT using manufacturer provided software. Does it affect image interpretation?European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2010Article
- Nitrate-enhanced gated SPECT in patients with primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: evidence of a reversible and nitrate-sensitive impairment of myocardial perfusion.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient displacements and errors in R-wave detection are the main causes of inaccurate acquisition for gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and equilibrium radionuclide angiography (RNA). This study aimed to compare the influences of both factors between gated SPECT and RNA determinations of left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS AND
resultsOn gated SPECT and RNA acquisitions, recorded in 20 patients with coronary artery disease, we simulated the consequences of (1) 3-dimensional patient displacements of low (6.7 mm), moderate (13.4 mm), and high amplitude (20.1 mm) and (2) an erroneous triggering on T waves in 10% to 40% of recorded beats. Absolute values of left ventricular ejection fraction changes from baseline were higher with gated SPECT compared with RNA for patient displacements of low amplitude (5.0% +/- 3.8% vs 1.2% +/- 0.9%, P < .001) or moderate amplitude (10.0% +/- 6.2% vs 3.0% +/- 2.3%, P = .001) but not for patient displacements of high amplitude (12% +/- 9% vs 9% +/- 7%, P = not significant) and inaccurate triggering (for 20% T-wave triggering, 8.9% +/- 3.6% vs 7.9% +/- 3.0%; P = not significant).
conclusionContrary to RNA, gated SPECT is vulnerable to small patient displacements, and thus, specific efforts might be useful for limiting this potential cause of erroneous results. Both techniques may be affected by low rates of triggering errors, suggesting that small acceptance windows on cycle length should be recommended not only for RNA but also for gated SPECT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.