Comparison of 64-Slice CT with Gated SPECT for Evaluation of Left Ventricular Function
Precise and reliable assessment of left ventricular (LV) function and dimensions is prognostically important in cardiac patients. As the integration of SPECT and multislice CT into hybrid scanners will promote the combined use of both techniques in the same patient, a comparison of the 2 methods is...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978) 2006-08, Vol.47 (8), p.1288-1294 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1294 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 1288 |
| container_title | The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978) |
| container_volume | 47 |
| creator | Schepis, Tiziano Gaemperli, Oliver Koepfli, Pascal Valenta, Ines Strobel, Klaus Brunner, Andrea Leschka, Sebastian Desbiolles, Lotus Husmann, Lars Alkadhi, Hatem Kaufmann, Philipp A |
| description | Precise and reliable assessment of left ventricular (LV) function and dimensions is prognostically important in cardiac patients. As the integration of SPECT and multislice CT into hybrid scanners will promote the combined use of both techniques in the same patient, a comparison of the 2 methods is pertinent. We aimed at comparing LV dimensions, muscle mass, and function obtained by electrocardiographically gated 64-slice CT versus gated-SPECT.
Sixty patients (mean age, 64 +/- 8 y) referred for evaluation of coronary artery disease underwent 99mTc-tetrofosmin gated SPECT and 64-slice CT within 4 +/- 2 d. LV ejection fraction (LVEF), end-systolic volume (ESV), and end-diastolic volume (EDV) from CT were compared with SPECT. Additionally, LV muscle mass and quantitative regional wall motion were assessed in 20 patients with both methods.
CT was in good agreement with SPECT for quantification of LVEF (r = 0.825), EDV (r = 0.898), and ESV (r = 0.956; all P < 0.0001). LVEF was 59% +/- 13% measured by SPECT and slightly higher but not significantly different by CT (60% +/- 12%; mean difference compared with SPECT, 1.1% +/- 1.7%; P = not significant). A systematic overestimation using CT for EDV (147 +/- 60 mL vs. 113 +/- 52 mL; mean difference, 33.5 +/- 23.1 mL) and ESV (63 +/- 55 mL vs. 53 +/- 49 mL; mean difference, 9.3 +/- 15.9 mL; P < 0.0001) was found compared with SPECT. A good correlation for muscle mass was found between the 2 methods (r = 0.868; P < 0.005). However, muscle mass calculated by SPECT was significantly lower compared with CT (127 +/- 24 g vs. 148 +/- 37 g; mean difference, 23.0 +/- 12.2 g; P < 0.001). The correlation for regional wall motion between the 2 methods was moderate (r = 0.648; P < 0.0001).
LVEF and LV functional parameters as determined by 64-slice CT agree over a wide range of clinically relevant values with gated SPECT. However, interchangeable use of the 2 techniques should be avoided for LV volumes, muscle mass, and regional wall motion because of variances inherent to the different techniques. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68703329</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68703329</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-h268t-6117f85a283a83d49aa8dd7a3a89dfe6ba4b3ebaaa88413281fcc3f13273f3c83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0M1LwzAUAPAgipvTf0GCBz0VkqZN06OUbQoDhc1dw2ua2Ix-zLRx-N-bsXnx9L5-PB7vAk1pytIo5Ty7RFNCOY3SlKQTdDMMO0IIF0JcowkNkRGSTdG26Ns9ODv0He4N5km0bqzSuNjggx1rvIRRV3j9Pg8N0zs8_4bGw2hPfKXNiLe6G51VvgGHF75Tx-EtujLQDPruHGfoYzHfFC_R6m35WjyvojrmYow4pZkRKcSCgWBVkgOIqsogVHllNC8hKZkuIbRFQlksqFGKmZBlzDAl2Aw9nvbuXf_l9TDK1g5KNw10uveD5CIjjMV5gA__4K73rgu3yZjmNBFUHLfdn5EvW13JvbMtuB_5964Ank6gtp_1wTotO68aDe6od12bZFJIGgf9C8Nwc2s</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>219148188</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of 64-Slice CT with Gated SPECT for Evaluation of Left Ventricular Function</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Schepis, Tiziano ; Gaemperli, Oliver ; Koepfli, Pascal ; Valenta, Ines ; Strobel, Klaus ; Brunner, Andrea ; Leschka, Sebastian ; Desbiolles, Lotus ; Husmann, Lars ; Alkadhi, Hatem ; Kaufmann, Philipp A</creator><creatorcontrib>Schepis, Tiziano ; Gaemperli, Oliver ; Koepfli, Pascal ; Valenta, Ines ; Strobel, Klaus ; Brunner, Andrea ; Leschka, Sebastian ; Desbiolles, Lotus ; Husmann, Lars ; Alkadhi, Hatem ; Kaufmann, Philipp A</creatorcontrib><description>Precise and reliable assessment of left ventricular (LV) function and dimensions is prognostically important in cardiac patients. As the integration of SPECT and multislice CT into hybrid scanners will promote the combined use of both techniques in the same patient, a comparison of the 2 methods is pertinent. We aimed at comparing LV dimensions, muscle mass, and function obtained by electrocardiographically gated 64-slice CT versus gated-SPECT.
Sixty patients (mean age, 64 +/- 8 y) referred for evaluation of coronary artery disease underwent 99mTc-tetrofosmin gated SPECT and 64-slice CT within 4 +/- 2 d. LV ejection fraction (LVEF), end-systolic volume (ESV), and end-diastolic volume (EDV) from CT were compared with SPECT. Additionally, LV muscle mass and quantitative regional wall motion were assessed in 20 patients with both methods.
CT was in good agreement with SPECT for quantification of LVEF (r = 0.825), EDV (r = 0.898), and ESV (r = 0.956; all P < 0.0001). LVEF was 59% +/- 13% measured by SPECT and slightly higher but not significantly different by CT (60% +/- 12%; mean difference compared with SPECT, 1.1% +/- 1.7%; P = not significant). A systematic overestimation using CT for EDV (147 +/- 60 mL vs. 113 +/- 52 mL; mean difference, 33.5 +/- 23.1 mL) and ESV (63 +/- 55 mL vs. 53 +/- 49 mL; mean difference, 9.3 +/- 15.9 mL; P < 0.0001) was found compared with SPECT. A good correlation for muscle mass was found between the 2 methods (r = 0.868; P < 0.005). However, muscle mass calculated by SPECT was significantly lower compared with CT (127 +/- 24 g vs. 148 +/- 37 g; mean difference, 23.0 +/- 12.2 g; P < 0.001). The correlation for regional wall motion between the 2 methods was moderate (r = 0.648; P < 0.0001).
LVEF and LV functional parameters as determined by 64-slice CT agree over a wide range of clinically relevant values with gated SPECT. However, interchangeable use of the 2 techniques should be avoided for LV volumes, muscle mass, and regional wall motion because of variances inherent to the different techniques.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0161-5505</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1535-5667</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16883007</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JNMEAQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Soc Nuclear Med</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Cardiology ; Comparative analysis ; Electrocardiography ; Female ; Heart attacks ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Organophosphorus Compounds ; Organotechnetium Compounds ; Patients ; Radiopharmaceuticals ; Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon - methods ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods ; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - diagnosis ; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - diagnostic imaging ; Ventricular Function, Left</subject><ispartof>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978), 2006-08, Vol.47 (8), p.1288-1294</ispartof><rights>Copyright Society of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883007$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schepis, Tiziano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gaemperli, Oliver</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koepfli, Pascal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valenta, Ines</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strobel, Klaus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brunner, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leschka, Sebastian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Desbiolles, Lotus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Husmann, Lars</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alkadhi, Hatem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaufmann, Philipp A</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of 64-Slice CT with Gated SPECT for Evaluation of Left Ventricular Function</title><title>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978)</title><addtitle>J Nucl Med</addtitle><description>Precise and reliable assessment of left ventricular (LV) function and dimensions is prognostically important in cardiac patients. As the integration of SPECT and multislice CT into hybrid scanners will promote the combined use of both techniques in the same patient, a comparison of the 2 methods is pertinent. We aimed at comparing LV dimensions, muscle mass, and function obtained by electrocardiographically gated 64-slice CT versus gated-SPECT.
Sixty patients (mean age, 64 +/- 8 y) referred for evaluation of coronary artery disease underwent 99mTc-tetrofosmin gated SPECT and 64-slice CT within 4 +/- 2 d. LV ejection fraction (LVEF), end-systolic volume (ESV), and end-diastolic volume (EDV) from CT were compared with SPECT. Additionally, LV muscle mass and quantitative regional wall motion were assessed in 20 patients with both methods.
CT was in good agreement with SPECT for quantification of LVEF (r = 0.825), EDV (r = 0.898), and ESV (r = 0.956; all P < 0.0001). LVEF was 59% +/- 13% measured by SPECT and slightly higher but not significantly different by CT (60% +/- 12%; mean difference compared with SPECT, 1.1% +/- 1.7%; P = not significant). A systematic overestimation using CT for EDV (147 +/- 60 mL vs. 113 +/- 52 mL; mean difference, 33.5 +/- 23.1 mL) and ESV (63 +/- 55 mL vs. 53 +/- 49 mL; mean difference, 9.3 +/- 15.9 mL; P < 0.0001) was found compared with SPECT. A good correlation for muscle mass was found between the 2 methods (r = 0.868; P < 0.005). However, muscle mass calculated by SPECT was significantly lower compared with CT (127 +/- 24 g vs. 148 +/- 37 g; mean difference, 23.0 +/- 12.2 g; P < 0.001). The correlation for regional wall motion between the 2 methods was moderate (r = 0.648; P < 0.0001).
LVEF and LV functional parameters as determined by 64-slice CT agree over a wide range of clinically relevant values with gated SPECT. However, interchangeable use of the 2 techniques should be avoided for LV volumes, muscle mass, and regional wall motion because of variances inherent to the different techniques.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Cardiology</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Electrocardiography</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Heart attacks</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Organophosphorus Compounds</subject><subject>Organotechnetium Compounds</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Radiopharmaceuticals</subject><subject>Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon - methods</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><subject>Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - diagnosis</subject><subject>Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Ventricular Function, Left</subject><issn>0161-5505</issn><issn>1535-5667</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpd0M1LwzAUAPAgipvTf0GCBz0VkqZN06OUbQoDhc1dw2ua2Ix-zLRx-N-bsXnx9L5-PB7vAk1pytIo5Ty7RFNCOY3SlKQTdDMMO0IIF0JcowkNkRGSTdG26Ns9ODv0He4N5km0bqzSuNjggx1rvIRRV3j9Pg8N0zs8_4bGw2hPfKXNiLe6G51VvgGHF75Tx-EtujLQDPruHGfoYzHfFC_R6m35WjyvojrmYow4pZkRKcSCgWBVkgOIqsogVHllNC8hKZkuIbRFQlksqFGKmZBlzDAl2Aw9nvbuXf_l9TDK1g5KNw10uveD5CIjjMV5gA__4K73rgu3yZjmNBFUHLfdn5EvW13JvbMtuB_5964Ank6gtp_1wTotO68aDe6od12bZFJIGgf9C8Nwc2s</recordid><startdate>20060801</startdate><enddate>20060801</enddate><creator>Schepis, Tiziano</creator><creator>Gaemperli, Oliver</creator><creator>Koepfli, Pascal</creator><creator>Valenta, Ines</creator><creator>Strobel, Klaus</creator><creator>Brunner, Andrea</creator><creator>Leschka, Sebastian</creator><creator>Desbiolles, Lotus</creator><creator>Husmann, Lars</creator><creator>Alkadhi, Hatem</creator><creator>Kaufmann, Philipp A</creator><general>Soc Nuclear Med</general><general>Society of Nuclear Medicine</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060801</creationdate><title>Comparison of 64-Slice CT with Gated SPECT for Evaluation of Left Ventricular Function</title><author>Schepis, Tiziano ; Gaemperli, Oliver ; Koepfli, Pascal ; Valenta, Ines ; Strobel, Klaus ; Brunner, Andrea ; Leschka, Sebastian ; Desbiolles, Lotus ; Husmann, Lars ; Alkadhi, Hatem ; Kaufmann, Philipp A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-h268t-6117f85a283a83d49aa8dd7a3a89dfe6ba4b3ebaaa88413281fcc3f13273f3c83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Cardiology</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Electrocardiography</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Heart attacks</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Organophosphorus Compounds</topic><topic>Organotechnetium Compounds</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Radiopharmaceuticals</topic><topic>Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon - methods</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><topic>Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - diagnosis</topic><topic>Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Ventricular Function, Left</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schepis, Tiziano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gaemperli, Oliver</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koepfli, Pascal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valenta, Ines</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strobel, Klaus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brunner, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leschka, Sebastian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Desbiolles, Lotus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Husmann, Lars</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alkadhi, Hatem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaufmann, Philipp A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schepis, Tiziano</au><au>Gaemperli, Oliver</au><au>Koepfli, Pascal</au><au>Valenta, Ines</au><au>Strobel, Klaus</au><au>Brunner, Andrea</au><au>Leschka, Sebastian</au><au>Desbiolles, Lotus</au><au>Husmann, Lars</au><au>Alkadhi, Hatem</au><au>Kaufmann, Philipp A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of 64-Slice CT with Gated SPECT for Evaluation of Left Ventricular Function</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978)</jtitle><addtitle>J Nucl Med</addtitle><date>2006-08-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1288</spage><epage>1294</epage><pages>1288-1294</pages><issn>0161-5505</issn><eissn>1535-5667</eissn><coden>JNMEAQ</coden><abstract>Precise and reliable assessment of left ventricular (LV) function and dimensions is prognostically important in cardiac patients. As the integration of SPECT and multislice CT into hybrid scanners will promote the combined use of both techniques in the same patient, a comparison of the 2 methods is pertinent. We aimed at comparing LV dimensions, muscle mass, and function obtained by electrocardiographically gated 64-slice CT versus gated-SPECT.
Sixty patients (mean age, 64 +/- 8 y) referred for evaluation of coronary artery disease underwent 99mTc-tetrofosmin gated SPECT and 64-slice CT within 4 +/- 2 d. LV ejection fraction (LVEF), end-systolic volume (ESV), and end-diastolic volume (EDV) from CT were compared with SPECT. Additionally, LV muscle mass and quantitative regional wall motion were assessed in 20 patients with both methods.
CT was in good agreement with SPECT for quantification of LVEF (r = 0.825), EDV (r = 0.898), and ESV (r = 0.956; all P < 0.0001). LVEF was 59% +/- 13% measured by SPECT and slightly higher but not significantly different by CT (60% +/- 12%; mean difference compared with SPECT, 1.1% +/- 1.7%; P = not significant). A systematic overestimation using CT for EDV (147 +/- 60 mL vs. 113 +/- 52 mL; mean difference, 33.5 +/- 23.1 mL) and ESV (63 +/- 55 mL vs. 53 +/- 49 mL; mean difference, 9.3 +/- 15.9 mL; P < 0.0001) was found compared with SPECT. A good correlation for muscle mass was found between the 2 methods (r = 0.868; P < 0.005). However, muscle mass calculated by SPECT was significantly lower compared with CT (127 +/- 24 g vs. 148 +/- 37 g; mean difference, 23.0 +/- 12.2 g; P < 0.001). The correlation for regional wall motion between the 2 methods was moderate (r = 0.648; P < 0.0001).
LVEF and LV functional parameters as determined by 64-slice CT agree over a wide range of clinically relevant values with gated SPECT. However, interchangeable use of the 2 techniques should be avoided for LV volumes, muscle mass, and regional wall motion because of variances inherent to the different techniques.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Soc Nuclear Med</pub><pmid>16883007</pmid><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0161-5505 |
| ispartof | The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978), 2006-08, Vol.47 (8), p.1288-1294 |
| issn | 0161-5505 1535-5667 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68703329 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
| subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Cardiology Comparative analysis Electrocardiography Female Heart attacks Humans Male Middle Aged Organophosphorus Compounds Organotechnetium Compounds Patients Radiopharmaceuticals Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon - methods Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - diagnosis Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - diagnostic imaging Ventricular Function, Left |
| title | Comparison of 64-Slice CT with Gated SPECT for Evaluation of Left Ventricular Function |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T02%3A14%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%2064-Slice%20CT%20with%20Gated%20SPECT%20for%20Evaluation%20of%20Left%20Ventricular%20Function&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20nuclear%20medicine%20(1978)&rft.au=Schepis,%20Tiziano&rft.date=2006-08-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1288&rft.epage=1294&rft.pages=1288-1294&rft.issn=0161-5505&rft.eissn=1535-5667&rft.coden=JNMEAQ&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E68703329%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=219148188&rft_id=info:pmid/16883007&rfr_iscdi=true |