Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 273–280 | Cite as

A comparison of the image quality of full-time myocardial perfusion SPECT vs wide beam reconstruction half-time and half-dose SPECT

  • E. Gordon DePuey
  • Srinivas Bommireddipalli
  • John Clark
  • Anna Leykekhman
  • Linda B. Thompson
  • Marvin Friedman
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

Wide Beam Reconstruction (WBR) (UltraSPECT, Ltd) uses resolution recovery and noise modeling to cope with decreased SPECT count statistics. Because WBR processing reconstructs half the usual SPECT count statistics, we postulate that image quality equivalent to a full-time acquisition can be achieved in either half the time or with half the radiopharmaceutical activity.

Methods

In 156 consecutive patients (pts) rest and 8-frame gated post-stress myocardial perfusion SPECT was performed following 333-444 and 1184-1480 MBq (9-12 and 32-40 mCi) Tc-99m sestamibi injections, respectively, with full-time (rest = 14 min; stress = 12.3 min) acquisitions processed with OSEM and also separate “half-time” acquisitions processed with WBR. A subsequent group of 160 consecutive pts matched in gender, weight, and chest circumference received “half-dose” rest and stress injections 214.6 ± 22.2 and 647.5 ± 92.5 MBq (5.8 ± 0.6 and 17.5 ± 2.5 mCi) with full-time SPECT acquisitions. Image quality (1 = poor to 5 = excellent) was judged by myocardial count density and uniformity, endocardial edge definition, perfusion defect delineation, right ventricular visualization, and background noise.

Results

Mean image quality for rest, stress, and post-stress gated images were 3.6 ± 0.7, 3.8 ± 0.7, and 3.9 ± 1.0, respectively, for “full-time OSEM; 3.7 ± 0.8, 4.0 ± 0.7, and 4.8 ± 0.4 for “half-time” WBR; and 4.3 ± 0.8, 4.6 ± 0.6, and 4.7 ± 0.6 for “half-dose” WBR. “Half-time” and “half-dose” WBR image quality were both superior to standard full-time OSEM (P’s < .001). There was no significant difference between the summed stress and rest scores for “full-time” OSEM vs “half-time” WBR in 82 patients with perfusion defects.

Conclusions

Both “half-time” and “half-dose” WBR provide myocardial perfusion SPECT quality superior to full-time OSEM, with an associated decrease in scan acquisition time and patient radiation exposure, respectively.

Keywords

Gated SPECT image processing instrumentation: SPECT iterative reconstruction radiation dosimetry 

References

  1. 1.
    Sharir T, Ben-Haim S, Merzon K, Prochorov V, Dickman D, Ben-Haim S, et al. High-speed myocardial perfusion imaging: Initial clinical comparison with conventional dual detector anger camera imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol Imaging 2008;1:156-63.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borges-Neto S, Pagnanelli RA, Shaw LK, Honeycutt E, Shwartz SC, Adams GL, et al. Clinical results of a novel wide beam reconstruction method for shortening scan time of Tc-99 m cardiac SPECT perfusion studies. J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14:555-65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    UltraSPECT R&D team, Haifa, Israel. Wide beam reconstruction: Technology and applications (white paper) 2008. www.ultraspect.com.
  4. 4.
    DePuey EG, Gadiraju R, Clark J, Thompson L, Anstett F, Shwartz SC. Ordered subset expectation maximization and wide beam reconstruction “half-time” gated myocardial perfusion SPECT functional imaging: A comparison to “full-time” filtered backprojection. J Nucl Cardiol 2008;15:547-63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DePuey EG, Bommireddipalli S, Clark J, Thompson L, Srour Y. Wide beam reconstruction “quarter-time” gated myocardial perfusion SPECT functional imaging: A comparison to “full-time” ordered subset expectation maximum. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:736-52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vellerman PF, Wilkinson L. Nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio typologies are misleading. Am Stat 1993;47:65-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maddahi J, Mendez R, Mahmarian J, Thomas G, Bai C, et al. Prospective multi-center evaluation of rapid gated SPECT myocardial perfusion and upright imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:351-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Venero CV, Heller GV, Bateman TM, McGhie AI, Ahlberg AW, Katten D, et al. A multicenter evaluation of a new post-processing method with depth-dependent collimator resolution applied to full-time and half-time acquisitions without and with simultaneously acquired attenuation correction. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:714-25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iskandrian AE. Stress-only myocardial perfusion imaging: A new paradigm. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;55:231-3.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bogdanich W, Ruiz RR. FDA to increase oversight of medical radiation. New York Times, February 10, 2010, p B7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 2007;116:1290-305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gibbons RJ, Araoz PA, Williamson EE. The Year in Cardiac Imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:54-70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DePuey EG. New software methods to cope with reduced counting statistics: Shorter SPECT acquisitions and many more possibilities. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:335-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Gordon DePuey
    • 1
  • Srinivas Bommireddipalli
    • 1
  • John Clark
    • 1
  • Anna Leykekhman
    • 1
  • Linda B. Thompson
    • 1
  • Marvin Friedman
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of RadiologySt. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital and Columbia University College of Physicians and SurgeonsNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations