Comparison of phase dyssynchrony analysis using gated myocardial perfusion imaging with four software programs: Based on the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine working group normal database

• Published in: Journal of nuclear cardiology Vol. 24; no. 2; pp. 611 - 621
• Main Authors: Nakajima, Kenichi, Okuda, Koichi, Matsuo, Shinro, Kiso, Keisuke, Kinuya, Seigo, Garcia, Ernest V.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Elsevier Inc 01.04.2017; Springer US; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Aged; Algorithms; Cardiac-Gated Single-Photon Emission Computer-Assisted Tomography - methods; Cardiology; Databases, Factual; dyssynchrony; Electrocardiography; Female; Gated Blood-Pool Imaging - methods; Gated myocardial perfusion image; Humans; Image Enhancement - methods; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods; Imaging; Japan; Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine working group; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; normal database; Nuclear Medicine; Original; Original Article; phase; Radiology; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Software; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - diagnostic imaging; Working groups; Japan; phase; PSD; EF; TES; dyssynchrony; Gated myocardial perfusion image; ESV; LV; ECTb; cREPO; EDV; HFV; Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine working group; normal database; QGS
• ISSN: 1071-3581; 1532-6551; 1532-6551
• DOI: 10.1007/s12350-015-0333-y

Left ventricular (LV) phase dyssynchrony parameters based on gated myocardial perfusion imaging varied among software programs. The aim of this study was to determine normal ranges and factors affecting phase parameters. Normal databases were derived from the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine working group (n = 69). The programs were Emory Cardiac Toolbox with SyncTool (ECTb), Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS), Heart Function View (HFV), and cardioREPO (cREPO); parameters of phase standard deviation (PSD), 95% bandwidth, and entropy were compared with parameters with ECTb as a reference. PSD (degree) was 5.3 ± 3.3 for QGS (P < .0001), 5.4 ± 2.5 for HFV (P < .0001), and 10.3 ± 3.2 for cREPO (P = n. s.) compared with 11.5 ± 5.5 for ECTb. Phase bandwidth with three programs differed significantly from ECTb. Gender differences were significant for all programs, indicating larger variation in males. After adjustment of LV volumes between genders, the difference disappeared except for QGS. The phase parameters showed wider variations in patients with the lower ejection fraction (EF) and larger LV volumes, depending on software types. Based on normal ranges of phase dyssynchrony parameters in four software programs, dependency on genders, LV volume, and EF should be considered, indicating the need for careful comparison among different software programs.