| Title |
Effect of patient positioning on the evaluation of myocardial perfusion SPECT
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-017-0865-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bertalan Kracskó, Sándor Barna, Orsolya Sántha, Anett Kiss, József Varga, Attila Forgács, Ildikó Garai |
| Abstract |
ECG-gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging is usually acquired in supine position. However, some patients are not comfortable in this position for a variety of personal or medical reasons. Our aim was to investigate the effect of patient positioning on quantitative SPECT imaging results using normal supine database. 55 patients (mean age 58.5 ± 8.3 years) were enrolled in this prospective study. Each patient had a pair of ECG-gated stress SPECT myocardial perfusion images acquired on two gamma cameras: one in supine position and the other in upright sitting position. Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF), end-diastolic (ED), and end-systolic (ES) left ventricular volumes (V), LV mass, summed stress perfusion defect score (SSS), and total severity score (TSS) were calculated automatically relative to a supine normal reference database. There were no significant differences in LVEF using the two cameras (0.65 ± 0.08 vs. 0.66 ± 0.10; P > 0.1). However, EDV, ESV, and LV mass were significantly smaller in sitting position than in supine position (89 vs. 80 ml; 33 vs. 29 ml and 115 vs. 109 ml, respectively, all P < 0.0001). On the other hand, SSS and TSS were significantly higher in sitting position than in supine position (5.16 vs. 8.73 and 166.82 vs. 288.27, both P < 0.0001). Overall, more studies in sitting position were interpreted as abnormal than in supine position (P < 0.05). Patient positioning has a significant impact on quantitative gated SPECT imaging results. Using a supine normal reference database, SSS and TSS were larger in sitting position than in supine position. Thus, for imaging in sitting position, separate normal limits are required. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 38% |
| Other | 2 | 25% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 50% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
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 02 April 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,839
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,595
of 323,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#38
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 323,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.