ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2021
Comparison of ejection fraction calculation between CT and SPECT at high heart rate: A dynamic cardiac phantom study.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2021. 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.
- Value of PET ECG gating in a cross-validation study of cardiac function assessment by PET/MR imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
- Non-invasive technologies for heart failure, systolic and diastolic dysfunction modeling: a scoping review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Is SPECT LVEF assessment more accurate than CT at higher heart rates? More evidence for complementary information in multimodality imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare the ejection fraction (EF) calculation of CT and SPECT at high heart rate. A dynamic cardiac phantom with programmable end-systolic volume (ESV), end-diastolic volume (EDV), and heart rate was used to compare CT, which has high spatial resolution (< 1 mm) and modest temporal resolution of 175 msec, and SPECT, which has high temporal resolution of 16 bins per cardiac cycle but poor spatial resolution (> 1 cm) in EF, ESV, and EDV at the heart rates ≤ 100 bpm for EF = 30 (disease state) and EF = 60 (healthy state). EF calculations for SPECT were accurate in 2% for 40 to 100 bpm for both EF = 30 and EF = 60, and were not heart rate dependent although both ESV and EDV could be underestimated by 18-20%. EF calculations for CT were accurate in 2.2% for 40 and 60 bpm. Inaccuracy in EF calculations, ESV and EDV estimates increased when the heart rate or EF increased. SPECT was accurate for EF calculation for the heart rates ≤ 100 bpm and CT was accurate for the heart rates of ≤ 60 bpm. CT was less accurate for the high heart rates of 80 and 100 bpm, or high EF = 60.
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.