Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29359273›Full record

ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2019

Comparison of two software systems for quantification of myocardial blood flow in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Hulya Yalcin, Ines Valenta, Min Zhao, Abdel Tahari, Dai-Yin Lu, Takahiro Higuchi, Fatih Yalcin, Nagehan Kucukler, Yalda Soleimanifard, Yun Zhou and 6 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Software reproducibility of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve quantification in ischemic heart disease: AJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020
    Article
  5. Relative disagreement among different software packages in PET-flow quantitation: An appeal for consistency.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020
    Article
  6. Striving for consistency in the measurement of LVEF and left ventricular volume.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

Hulya YalcinHypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Center of Excellence, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ines ValentaRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Min ZhaoRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abdel TahariRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Dai-Yin LuHypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Center of Excellence, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Takahiro HiguchiNational Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Osaka, Japan.
Fatih YalcinHypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Center of Excellence, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Nagehan KucuklerHypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Center of Excellence, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Yalda SoleimanifardHypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Center of Excellence, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Yun ZhouRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Martin G PomperRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Theodore P AbrahamHypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Center of Excellence, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ben TsuiRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Martin A LodgeRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Thomas H SchindlerRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
M Roselle AbrahamHypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Center of Excellence, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. Roselle.Abraham@ucsf.edu.
Johns Hopkins University · USNational Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center · JP

Funding

Translational Research Central ServicesP30CA006973 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Rosalie Wollett · 1985 to 2026
$208.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006973
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgorundQuantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) by positron emission tomography (PET) is important for investigation of angina in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Several software programs exist for MBF quantification, but they have been mostly evaluated in patients (with normal cardiac geometry), referred for evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD). Software performance has not been evaluated in HCM patients who frequently have hyperdynamic LV function, LV outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, small LV cavity size, and variation in the degree/location of LV hypertrophy.

aimWe compared results of MBF obtained using PMod, which permits manual segmentation, to those obtained by FDA-approved QPET software which has an automated segmentation algorithm.

methods

resultsAll HCM patients had asymmetric septal hypertrophy, and 50% had evidence of LVOT obstruction, whereas non-HCM patients (CAD group) had normal wall thickness and ejection fraction. PMod yielded significantly higher values for global and regional stress-MBF and MFR than for QPET in HCM. Reasonably fair correlation was observed for global rest-MBF, stress-MBF, and MFR using these two softwares (rest-MBF: r = 0.78; stress-MBF: r = 0.66.; MFR: r = 0.7) in HCM patients. Agreement between global MBF and MFR values improved when HCM patients with high spillover fractions (> 0.65) were excluded from the analysis (rest-MBF: r = 0.84; stress-MBF: r = 0.72; MFR: r = 0.8.) Regionally, the highest agreement between PMod and QPET was observed in the LAD territory (rest-MBF: r = 0.82, Stress-MBF: r = 0.68) where spillover fraction was the lowest. Unlike HCM patients, the non-HCM patients (CAD group) demonstrated excellent agreement in MBF/MFR values, obtained by the two softwares, when patients with high spillover fractions were excluded (rest-MBF: r = 0.95; stress-MBF: r = 0.92; MFR: r = 0.95).

conclusionsAnatomic characteristics specific to HCM hearts contribute to lower correlations between MBF/MFR values obtained by PMod and QPET, compared with non-HCM patients. These differences indicate that PMod and QPET cannot be used interchangeably for MBF/MFR analyses in HCM patients.

Indexed as

Positron-Emission TomographySoftwareAdultAgedAlgorithmsCardiomyopathy, HypertrophicCohort StudiesCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary CirculationEchocardiographyFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedHypertrophic cardiomyopathymyocardial blood flowN-13 Ammonia PETquantitative analysis

Identifiers

PMID29359273
OpenAlexW2793785863

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.