Advertisement

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 418–425 | Cite as

Electrocardiographically gated myocardial perfusion SPECT: Technical principles and quality control considerations

  • S. James CullomEmail author
  • James A. Case
  • Timothy M. Bateman
Review

Conclusion

Gated SPECT studies provide important information about cardiac function that is independent of perfusion data. This is permitted by the generalization of the nongated SPECT study to sample the data temporally. The benefits of this approach are accompanied by new technical and clinical challenges related largely to interaction of varying rates of sinus rhythm and the response of the computer system. Identification of potential technical limitations is important, as is recognizing for which patients gated SPECT acquisition may not be suitable. These considerations should be part of a quality program to assure the highest quality of gated SPECT images and optimize the clinical utility of this important new method of acquiring SPECT images.

Keywords

Single Photon Emission Compute Tomographic Leave Ventricular Ejection Fraction Nuclear Cardiology Single Photon Emission Compute Tomographic Imaging Myocardial Perfusion Spect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chua T, Kiat H, Germano G, Maurer G, Van Train K, Friedman J, et al. Gated technetium-99m sestamibi for simultaneous assessment of stress myocardial perfusion, post-exercise regional ventricular function and myocardial viability: correlation with echocardiography and rest thallium-201 scintigraphy. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;23:1107–14.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    DePuey EG, Nichols K, Dobrinsky C. Left ventricular ejection fraction assessed from gated technetium-99m-sestamibi SPECT. J Nucl Med 1993;34:1871–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smanio PEP, Watson DD, Segalla DL, Vinson EL, Smith WH, Beller GA. Value of gating of technetium-99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomographic imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:1687–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Snapper HJ, Shea NL, Konstam MA, Oates E, Udelson JE. Combined analysis of resting regional wall thickening and stress perfusion with electrocardiographic-gated technetium-99m-labeled sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography: prediction of stress defect reversibility. J Nucl Cardiol 1997;4:3–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kahn JK, Henderson EB, Akers MS, et al. Prediction of reversibility of perfusion defects with a single post-exercise technetium-99m RP-30A gated tomographic image: the role of residual systolic thickening. J Am Coll Cardiol 1988;11:31A.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hammermeister KE, Warbasse JR. The rate of change of left ventricular volume in man: diastolic events in health and disease. Circulation 1974;49:739–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bacharach SL, Bonow RO, Green MV. Comparison of fixed and variable temporal resolution methods for creating gated cardiac blood pool image sequences. J Nucl Med 1990;31:38–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Juni JE, Chen CC. Effects of gating modes on the analysis of left ventricular function in the presence of heart rate variation. J Nucl Med 1988;29:1272–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garcia EV, editor. Imaging guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures. Part 1. J Nucl Cardiol 1996;3:GG1–45.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mazzanti M, Germano G, Kiat H, Friedman J, Berman DS. Fast technetium-99m-labeled sestamibi gated single-photon emission computed tomography for evaluation of myocardial function. J Nucl Cardiol 1996;3:143–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cooke CD, Garcia EV, Cullom SJ, Faber TF, Pettigrew RI. Determining the accuracy of calculating systolic wall thickening using a fast Fourier transform approximation: a simulation study based on canine and patient data. J Nucl Med 1994;35:1185–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Germano G, Erel J, Kiat H, Kavanaugh PB, Berman DS. Quantitative LVEF and qualitative regional function from gated thallium-201 perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med 1997;38:749–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maunoury C, Chen CC, Chua KB, Thompson CJ. Quantification of left ventricular function with thallium-201 and technetium-99m-sestamibi myocardial gated SPECT. J Nucl Med 1997;38:958–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bateman TM, Case JA, Saunders MJ, O'Keefe JH, Williams ME, Sherwani K, et al. Gated SPECT LVEF measurements using a dual-detector camera and weight-adjusted dosage of thallium-201. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:263A.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Galt JR, Hise HL, Garcia EV, Nowak DJ. Filtering in frequency space. J Nucl Med Technol 1986;14:152–62.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garcia EV, Cooke CD, Van Train KF, Folks RF, Peifer J, DePuey EG, et al. Technical aspects of myocardial SPECT imaging with technetium-99m sestamibi. Am J Cardiol 1990;13:23E-31E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cullom SJ, Galt JP, Garcia EV. Attenuation correction in myocardial perfusion spect. J Nucl Med. In press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Germano G, Kiat H, Kavanagh PB, et al. Automatic quantification of ejection fraction from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med 1995;36:2138–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nichols K, DePuey EG, Rozanski A. Automation of gated tomographic left ventricular ejection. J Nucl Cardiol 1996;3:475–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Faber TL, Akers MS, Peshock RM, Corbett JR. Three-dimensional motion and perfusion quantification in gated single-photon emission computed tomograms. J Nucl Med 1991;32:2311–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trujillo NP, Quaife RA, Adiseshan P, et al. A new automated method for assessment of left ventricular function and myocardial perfusion using gated Tc-99m sestamibi imaging: comparison with cardiac catheterization [abstract]. J Nucl Med 1996;37:179P.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Everaert H, Franken PR, Flamen P, Goris M, Momen A, Bossuyt A. Left ventricular ejection fraction from gated SPET myocardial perfusion studies: a method based on the radial distribution of count rate density across the myocardial wall. Eur J Nucl Med 1996;23:1628–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mochizuki T, Murase K, Tanaka H, et al. Assessment of left ventricular volume using ECG gated SPECT with technetium-99m-MIBI and technetium-99m-tetrofosmin. J Nucl Med 1997;38:53–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Faber TL, Folks RD, Cooke CD, Vansant JP, Pettigrew RI, Garcia EV. Left ventricular mass from ungated perfusion images: comparison to MRI [abstract]. J Nucl Med 1997;38:20P.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vansant JP, Faber TL, Folks RD, Nichols K, DePuey G, Garcia E. Validation of an automated methodology for determining left ventricular ejection fraction from gated SPECT [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:263A.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Case JA, Cullom SJ, Bateman TM, et al. Overestimation of LVEF by gated MIBI myocardial perfusion SPECT with small hearts [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;31:43A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nichols K, DePuey EG, Dorbala S, Sharma A, Salensky, Rozanski A. Influence of gating errors on SPECT myocardial perfusion quantitation. J Nucl Med 1998;39:45P.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nichols K, DePuey EG, Dorbala S, Sharma A, Yao SS, Rozanski A. Prevalence of gating errors in myocardial perfusion SPECT data. J Nucl Med 1998;39:45P.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    DePuey EG, Rozanski AR. Using gated technetium-99m-sestamibi SPECT to characterize fixed defects as infarct or artifact. J Nucl Med 1995;36:952–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ziffer JA, Cooke CD, Folks RD, LaPidus AS, Alazraki NP, Garcia EV. Quantitative myocardial thickening assessed with sestamibi: clinical evaluation of a count-based method [abstract]. J Nucl Med 1991;32:1006.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mochizuki T, Murase K, Fujiwara Y, Tanada S, Hamamoto K, Tauxe WN. Assessment of systolic thickening with thalluum-201 ECG gated single photon emission computed tomography: a parameter for local left ventricular function. J Nucl Med 1991;32:1496–500.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bartlett ML, Buvat I, Vaquero JJ, Mok D, Dilsizian V, Bacharach SL. Measurement of myocardial wall thickening from PET/SPECT images: comparison of two methods. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1996;20:473–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Buvat I, Bartlett ML, Kitsiou AN, Dilsizian V, Bacharach SL. A “hybrid” method for measuring myocardial wall thickening from gated PET/SP ECT images. J Nucl Med 1997;38:324–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Galt JR, Garcia EV, Robbins WL. Effects of myocardial wall thickness on SPECT quantification. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1990;9:144–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hoffman EJ, Huang SC, Phelps ME. Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography, I: effects of object size. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1979;5:391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Case JA, Cullom SJ, Bateman TM, O'Keefe JH, Williams ME. Count density and filter requirements for accurate LVEF measurements from gated Tl-201 SPECT. J Nucl Med 1997;38:27P.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. James Cullom
    • 1
    Email author
  • James A. Case
    • 1
  • Timothy M. Bateman
    • 1
  1. 1.Cardiovascular Consultants, PCMid-America Heart InstituteKansas City

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options