Quantitative myocardial-perfusion SPECT: Comparison of three state-of-the-art software packages
Quantitative myocardial-perfusion SPECT: Comparison of three state-of-the-art software packages
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.nuclcard.2007.09.020
复制
发表时间：
2008-01-01
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Germano, Guido
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wolak, Arik;Slomka, Piotr J.;Germano, Guido
背景。我们的目的是比较 4DMSPECT (4DM)、Emory Cardiac Toolbox (EMO) 和 QPS 系统在检测冠状动脉疾病 (CAD) 方面的自动化和诊断性能，以自动定量心肌灌注。方法和结果。我们研究了 328 名转诊接受休息/应激 Tc-99m 塞他米比成像的患者、140 名低可能性患者和 188 名接受血管造影的患者。必要时修正轮廓。所有其他处理都是完全自动化的。进行了 17 段分析，总压力评分 (SSS) >= 4 被认为是异常的。 4DM、EMO 和 QPS 的平均 SSS (+/- SD) 分别为 10.5 +/- 9.4、11.1 +/- 8.3 和 10.1 +/- 8.9（QPS 与 EMO 的 P = .02）。 4DM、EMO 和 QPS 检测 CAD (+/- SEM) 的接收器操作员特征曲线下面积分别为 0.84 +/- 0.03、0.76 +/- 0.04 和 0.88 +/- 0.03（QPS 与 EMO 的 P = .001，4DM 与 EMO 的 P = 0.03）。 QPS 和 4DM 的正常率高于 EMO，分别为 91% 和 94% vs 77% (P = .02)。 QPS (87%) 的灵敏度高于 4DM (80%) (P = .045)。 QPS (71%) 的特异性高于 EMO (49%) (P = .01)。 QPS 的准确率高于 4DM 和 EMO，分别为 83%、77% 和 76% (P = .05)。结论。心肌灌注量化、诊断性能和软件包的自动化程度存在差异。
Background. We aimed to compare the automation and diagnostic performance in the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD) of the 4DMSPECT (4DM), Emory Cardiac Toolbox (EMO), and QPS systems for automated quantification of myocardial perfusion.Methods and Results. We studied 328 patients referred for rest/stress Tc-99m sestamibi imaging, 140 low-likelihood patients and 188 with angiography. Contours were corrected when necessary. All other processing was fully automated. A 17-segment analysis was performed, and a summed stress score (SSS) >= 4 was considered abnormal. The average SSSs (+/- SD) for 4DM, EMO, and QPS were 10.5 +/- 9.4, 11.1 +/- 8.3, and 10.1 +/- 8.9, respectively (P = .02 for QPS versus EMO). The receiver operator characteristics areas-under-the-curve for the detection of CAD (+/- SEM) were 0.84 +/- 0.03, 0.76 +/- 0.04, and 0.88 +/- 0.03 for 4DM, EMO, and QPS, respectively (P = .001 for QPS versus EMO, and P = .03 for 4DM versus EMO). Normalcy rate was higher for QPS and 4DM versus EMO, at 91% and 94% versus 77%, respectively (P = .02). Sensitivity was higher for QPS (87%) versus 4DM (80%) (P = .045). Specificity was higher for QPS (71%) versus EMO (49%) (P = .01). The accuracy rate was higher for QPS versus 4DM and EMO, at 83% versus 77% and 76%, respectively (P = .05).Conclusions. There are differences in myocardial-perfusion quantification, diagnostic performance, and degree of automation of software packages.