Comparison of gating methods for the real-time analysis of left ventricular function in nonimaging blood pool studies
Background Gating methods developed for electrocardiographic-triggered radionuclideventriculography are being used with nonimaging detectors. These methods have not been compared on the basis of their real-time performance or suitability for determination of load-independent indexes of left ventricu...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of nuclear cardiology 1995-09, Vol.2 (5), p.405-412 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background Gating methods developed for electrocardiographic-triggered radionuclideventriculography are being used with nonimaging detectors. These methods have not been compared on the basis of their real-time performance or suitability for determination of load-independent indexes of left ventricular function. This work evaluated the relative merits of different gating methods for nonimaging radionuclude ventriculographic studies, with particular emphasis on their suitability for real-time measurements and the determination of pressure-volume loops.
Methods and Results A computer model was used to investigate the relative accuracy offorward gating, backward gating, and phase-mode gating. The durations of simulated left ventricular time-activity curves were randomly varied. Three acquisition parameters were considered: frame rate, acceptance window, and sample size. Twenty-five studies were performed for each combination of acquisition parameters. Hemodynamic and shape, parameters from each study were compared with reference parameters derived directly from the random time-activity curves. Backward gating produced the largest errors under all conditions. For both forward gating and phase-mode gating, ejection fraction was underestimated and time to end systole and normalized peak ejection rate were overestimated. For the hemodynamic parameters, forward gating was marginally superior to phase-mode gating. The mean difference in errors between forward and phase-mode gating was 1.47% (SD 2.78%). However, for root mean square shape error, forward gating was several times worse in every case and seven times worse than phase-mode gating on average.
Conclusions Both forward and phase-mode gating are suitable for real-time hemodynamicmeasurements by nonimaging techniques. The small statistical difference between the methods is not clinically significant. The true shape of the time-activity curve is maintained most accurately by phase-mode gating. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1071-3581 1532-6551 |
DOI: | 10.1016/S1071-3581(05)80028-5 |