Why the study?
The study evaluated the effects of different heartbeat acceptance windows on LV functional parameters during gated MPS using a CZT camera in consistently variable arrhythmia patients, using echocardiography as a reference.
Does setting a one-peak heartbeat acceptance window on gated MPS improve the accuracy of left ventricular functional parameter measurement compared to a two-peak window in patients with consistently variable arrhythmias?
Does setting a one-peak heartbeat acceptance window on gated MPS improve the accuracy of left ventricular functional parameter measurement compared to a two-peak window in patients with consistently variable arrhythmias?
Setting the heartbeat acceptance window to one peak on gated MPS using a CZT camera provides more accurate LV function measurements in patients with consistently variable arrhythmias compared to a two-peak window.
Different acceptance windows may alter LV volumes and LVEF in arrhythmic patients; leaves open optimal gating for CZT SPECT.
OBJECTIVES: Consistently variable with several peaks in heart rate histogram (e.g. bigeminy and trigeminy) is one of the arrhythmia types. We investigated the effects of gating error by consistently variable patients on left ventricular (LV) functional with cadmium zinc telluride (CZT) camera. The purpose of this study is to evaluate LV functional parameters by setting different heartbeat acceptance windows on gated myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (MPS) in consistently variable patients, using echocardiography (echo) as a reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen consistently variable patients underwent the gated MPS using a D-SPECT. The MPS images were obtained by setting two different types of heartbeat acceptance windows. The heartbeat acceptance windows were set to include only one peak and two peaks of the maximum count peaks, respectively. RESULTS: Mean end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were 112.7 mL, 62.2 mL and 51.3% for one peak, 114.5 mL, 66.1 mL and 47.1% for two peak, and 113.0 mL, 54.2 mL and 54.1% for echo, respectively. The mean differences between two peaks and echo in LVEF were larger than those of between one peak and echo. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that setting the heartbeat acceptance window of one peak was suitable for accurate measurement of LV function in consistently variable patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tsuboi et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: