查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | Ventricular Function Test: Gated Myocardial Perfusion SPECT Versus Gated Blood-Pool SPECT and Planar Equilibrium Radionuclide Angiography=比較柵式心肌血流單光子斷層造影、柵式血池單光子斷層造影及平面柵式血池造影於心室功能的測定 |
---|---|
作 者 | 彭南靖; 馬光遠; 劉俊鵬; 林雯君; 吳志順; 邱寬饒; 李道輿; 林少琳; | 書刊名 | 核子醫學雜誌 |
卷 期 | 19:2 民95.06 |
頁 次 | 頁65-70 |
分類號 | 415.21 |
關鍵詞 | 平面柵式血池造影; 柵式血池單光子斷層造影; 柵式心肌血流單光子斷層造影; 左心室搏出率; Equilibrium radionuclide angiography; Gated blood-pool SPECT; Gated myocardial perfusion SPECT; Left ventricular ejection fraction; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 背景:平面柵式血池造影可提供一簡便及非侵襲性的方法評估心室功能;柵式血池單光子斷層造影具有立體斷層的優勢,使心室功能的分析更準確;柵式心肌血流單光子斷層造影可同時偵測心肌血流灌注及心室功能。上述三種方式計算的心室功能可能有不同的結果,造成臨床診斷、治療及追蹤的困擾。本研究之目的即在比較上述三種評估心室功能的方法,並找出其中相關性。 方法:52例病患接受平面柵式血池造影、柵式血池單光子斷層造影及柵式心肌血流單光子斷層造影三種檢查。左心室搏出率由以上三種方法計算;右心室搏出率由平面柵式血池造影及柵式血池單光子斷層造影計算。 結果:平面柵式血池造影、柵式血池單光子斷層造影及柵式心肌血流單光子斷層造影檢查左心室搏出率分別為53.86±13.34%、57.37±18.07%及61.88±17.52%;右心室搏出率僅能計算前二者,分別為45.80±8.59%及53.17±17.25%。柵式心肌血流單光子斷層造影的左心室搏出率平均值較平面柵式血池造影高8.02%(P<0.001),較柵式血池單光子斷層造影高4.51%。柵式血池單光子斷層造影的右心室搏出率平均值較平面柵式血池造影高7.37%(P=0.004)。柵式心肌血流單光子斷層造影於正常心臟大小的左心室搏出率平均值較平面柵式血池造影高(P<0.001),但於心臟擴大的左心室搏出率則相當(P=0.79)。 結論:平面柵式血池造影、柵式血池單光子斷層造影及柵式心肌血流單光子斷層造影三種檢查計算出的左、右心室搏出率不盡相同。柵式心肌血流單光子斷層造影易受心臟大小影響。我們應了解各種方法的差異性,以便提供臨床最有效的參考依據。 |
英文摘要 | Background: Equilibrium radionuclide angiography (ERNA) is well established and provides a relatively simple and noninvasive method to assess ventricular function. Gated blood pool SPECT (GBPS) has the benefit of the tomographic perspective to better isolate the left and right ventricles without overlap of other cardiac chambers for analysis of ventricular function. Gated myocardial perfusion SPECT (GMPS) provides the ability to assess both myocardial perfusion and ventricular function to further risk-stratify patients. However, the ventricular function derived from the three different methods varies much at a same patient, leading evaluation or follow-up difficult. The purpose of this study is to compare ERNA, GBPS and GMPS for the assessment of ventricular function and find a correlation among them. Methods: Fifty-two patients collected from Jan. 2004 to Dec. 2004 were included. All patients received ERNA, GBPS and GMPS. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was calculated and analyzed from the aforementioned three methods, and right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) was from ERNA and GBPS. Results: The LVEF derived from ERNA, GBPS and GMPS were 53.86±13.34%, 57.37±18.07% and 61.88±17.52%, respectively. The RVEF derived from ERNA and GBPS were 45.80±8.59% and 53.17±17.25%, respectively. The mean LVEF from GMPS was 8.02% and 4.51% higher than that from ERNA and GBPS (P<0001, GMPS vs. ERNA). The RVEF from GBPS was 7.37% higher than that from planar ERNA (P=0.004). The LVEF from GMPS was significantly higher than that from ERNA (P<0.001), except for the patients with dilated heart (P=0.79). Conclusion: The ventricular function derived from ERNA, GBPS and GMPS were different from each other. The LVEF from GMPS is strongly affected by the heart size. Knowing the differences among these data help to realize the actual ventricular function and serial evaluation of ventricular function in clinical patients. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。