Phase analysis, a novel SPECT technique for left ventricular dyssynchrony: Are degrees and milliseconds interchangeable?
- 40 Downloads
Phase analysis of gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion scintigraphy provides a measure of left ventricular dyssynchrony and may have applications for identifying patients suitable for cardiac resynchronisation therapy. Phase analysis is typically described in degrees of cardiac cycle, less intuitive to cardiologists familiar with ECGs. We assessed the relationship between time and degrees, to determine whether they are interchangeable.
Methods and results
399 patients underwent normal stress-only SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging using Technetium-99m-tetrofosmin. Data analysis used QGS software (Cedars Sinai) calculating bandwidth and standard deviation. Heart rate, age, gender, stress modality, and ejection fraction were analyzed for their relation to phase variables. 13 patients were excluded for conduction abnormalities including right and left bundle branch block and ventricular pacing. Heart rate was strongly correlated to bandwidth and standard deviation measured in time, but unrelated when measured in degrees. Although bandwidth measured by time and degrees were strongly correlated with each other this relationship was not perfect (correlation coefficient 0.87, P < .001). The addition of heart rate to the model explained most of the residual variation between the two. The results for standard deviation were similar.
In patients with normal myocardial perfusion and QRS duration bandwidth measured by degrees is not directly interchangeable with time in milliseconds. However most of the variation is explainable by heart rate, which predominantly affects measures of time rather than degrees. We would propose that although the values are less intuitive to cardiologists, normal ranges for phase measured in degrees are potentially more robust.
There are no relationships with industry and no conflicts of interest.
- 1.Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, Berra K, Blankenship JC, Dallas AP, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/ PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:e44-164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Chen J, Garcia EV, Folks RD, Cooke CD, Faber TL, Tauxe EL, et al. Onset of left ventricular mechanical contraction as determined by phase analysis of ECG-gated myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging: Development of a diagnostic tool for assessment of cardiac mechanical dyssynchrony. J Nucl Cardiol 2005;12:687-95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JG, Coats AJ, Authors/Task Force Members, et al. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur J Heart Fail 2016;18:891-975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Trimble MA, Velazquez EJ, Adams GL, Honeycutt EF, Pagnanelli RA, Barnhart HX, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of phase analysis of gated single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging used to quantify cardiac dyssynchrony. Nucl Med Commun 2008;29:374-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Vancura V, Wichterle D, Ulc I, Šmíd J, Brabec M, Zárybnická M, et al. The variability of automated QRS duration measurement. Europace 2017;19:636-43.Google Scholar
- 11.Boogers MM, Van Kriekinge SD, Henneman MM, Ypenburg C, Van Bommel RJ, Boersma E, et al. Quantitative gated SPECT-derived phase analysis on gated myocardial perfusion SPECT detects left ventricular dyssynchrony and predicts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Nucl Med 2009;50:718-25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar