Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26231888›Full record

ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2016

Radiation reduction and faster acquisition times with SPECT gated blood pool scans using a high-efficiency cardiac SPECT camera.

W Lane Duvall, Krista A Guma-Demers, Titus George, Milena J Henzlova

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cardiac CZT-SPECT: More than left ventricular imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Dose-optimization in nuclear cardiac imaging, time for the next step?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. The time for radionuclide ventriculography resurrection is coming.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016
    Article
  11. Which SPECT for today, which SPECT for tomorrow?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

W Lane DuvallHartford Hospital Division of Cardiology (Henry Low Heart Center), Hartford Hospital, 80 Seymour Street, Hartford, CT, 06102, USA. lane.duvall@hhchealth.org.
Krista A Guma-DemersMount Sinai Division of Cardiology (Mount Sinai Heart), Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Titus GeorgeMount Sinai Division of Cardiology (Mount Sinai Heart), Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Milena J HenzlovaMount Sinai Division of Cardiology (Mount Sinai Heart), Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Mount Sinai Medical Center · USHartford Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPlanar gated blood pool scans are an established method for the evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) but the camera technology used for these studies has not significantly changed in decades. The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of new high-efficiency SPECT gated blood pool scans compared to traditional scans and determine if they can be performed with lower radiation doses or faster acquisition times.

methodsPatients undergoing a planar gated blood pool scan on a Na-I SPECT camera who consented to participate were subsequently imaged for 5 minutes in "List Mode" using a high-efficiency SPECT camera. LVEF was calculated for both the planar study and at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 minutes of acquisition on the high-efficiency camera. Counts acquired in the field of view, counts in the cardiac blood pool and LVEF were compared.

resultsA total of 46 patients were analyzed (48% male, mean age 55 years, and BMI 27.6 kg/m(2)) who received an average Tc-99m dose of 20.3 mCi (5.3 mSv), 17 (37%) with abnormal LVEF's. The Na-I camera averaged 24,514 counts/min/mCi in the field of view and 8662 counts/min/mCi in the cardiac blood pool while the high-efficiency camera averaged 65,219 counts/min/mCi and 41,427 counts/min/mCi, respectively. Compared to the planar calculation of LVEF, 1-minute SPECT LVEF was on average 8.6 ± 10.7 higher, 2 minutes 3.5 ± 7.6 higher, 3 minutes 2.9 ± 8.5 higher, 4 minutes 2.5 ± 7.0 higher, and 5 minutes 1.1 ± 6.2 higher. Good correlation was seen between the SPECT LVEF's and the planar LVEF's across all acquisition times with correlation coefficients of 0.74-0.93.

conclusionsHigh-efficiency SPECT technology can reduce radiation exposure to patients during gated blood pool imaging or decrease acquisition time while maintaining diagnostic accuracy. Based on the improved count sensitivity with high-efficiency SPECT, a 50% reduction in injected activity may be achievable while maintaining short imaging times of 5 minutes, with further reduction possible at longer imaging times.

Indexed as

Gamma CamerasEquipment DesignEquipment Failure AnalysisGated Blood-Pool ImagingHumansImage EnhancementRadiation DosageRadiation ExposureRadiation ProtectionReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityTime FactorsTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonGated blood pool scansHigh-efficiency SPECTRadiation exposure

Identifiers

PMID26231888
OpenAlexW1029817583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.