| Title |
Calculation of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction from dynamic cardiac-gated 15O-water PET/CT: 5D-PET
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
EJNMMI Physics, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40658-017-0195-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonny Nordström, Tanja Kero, Hendrik Johannes Harms, Charles Widström, Frank A. Flachskampf, Jens Sörensen, Mark Lubberink |
| Abstract |
Quantitative measurement of myocardial blood flow (MBF) is of increasing interest in the clinical assessment of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). (15)O-water positron emission tomography (PET) is considered the gold standard for non-invasive MBF measurements. However, calculation of left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (EF) is not possible from standard (15)O-water uptake images. The purpose of the present work was to investigate the possibility of calculating LV volumes and LVEF from cardiac-gated parametric blood volume (V B) (15)O-water images and from first pass (FP) images. Sixteen patients with mitral or aortic regurgitation underwent an eight-gate dynamic cardiac-gated (15)O-water PET/CT scan and cardiac MRI. V B and FP images were generated for each gate. Calculations of end-systolic volume (ESV), end-diastolic volume (EDV), stroke volume (SV) and LVEF were performed with automatic segmentation of V B and FP images, using commercially available software. LV volumes and LVEF were calculated with surface-, count-, and volume-based methods, and the results were compared with gold standard MRI. Using V B images, high correlations between PET and MRI ESV (r = 0.89, p < 0.001), EDV (r = 0.85, p < 0.001), SV (r = 0.74, p = 0.006) and LVEF (r = 0.72, p = 0.008) were found for the volume-based method. Correlations for FP images were slightly, but not significantly, lower than those for V B images when compared to MRI. Surface- and count-based methods showed no significant difference compared with the volume-based correlations with MRI. The volume-based method showed the best agreement with MRI with no significant difference on average for EDV and LVEF but with an overestimation of values for ESV (14%, p = 0.005) and SV (18%, p = 0.004) when using V B images. Using FP images, none of the parameters showed a significant difference from MRI. Inter-operator repeatability was excellent for all parameters (ICC > 0.86, p < 0.001). Calculation of LV volumes and LVEF from dynamic (15)O-water PET is feasible and shows good correlation with MRI. However, the analysis method is laborious, and future work is needed for more automation to make the method more easily applicable in a clinical setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 30% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 33% |
| Engineering | 3 | 11% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 11% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,576,855
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from EJNMMI Physics
#113
of 182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,058
of 325,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EJNMMI Physics
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 182 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,276 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.