n Cardiovascular Journal of Africa - Comparison of estimates of left ventricular ejection fraction obtained from gated blood pool imaging, different software packages and cameras : cardiovascular topic
|Article Title||Comparison of estimates of left ventricular ejection fraction obtained from gated blood pool imaging, different software packages and cameras : cardiovascular topic|
|© Publisher:||Clinics Cardive Publishing|
|Journal||Cardiovascular Journal of Africa|
|Affiliations||1 Groote Schuur Hospital, 2 Groote Schuur Hospital, 3 Groote Schuur Hospital, 4 University of Cape Town, 5 University of Cape Town and 6 University of Cape Town|
|Publication Date||Mar 2014|
|Pages||44 - 49|
|Keyword(s)||Cameras, Gated blood pool studies, Results and Software packages|
Objective : To determine how two software packages, supplied by Siemens and Hermes, for processing gated blood pool (GBP) studies should be used in our department and whether the use of different cameras for the acquisition of raw data influences the results.
Methods : The study had two components. For the first component, 200 studies were acquired on a General Electric (GE) camera and processed three times by three operators using the Siemens and Hermes software packages. For the second part, 200 studies were acquired on two different cameras (GE and Siemens). The matched pairs of raw data were processed by one operator using the Siemens and Hermes software packages.
Results : The Siemens method consistently gave estimates that were 4.3% higher than the Hermes method (p < 0.001). The differences were not associated with any particular level of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). There was no difference in the estimates of LVEF obtained by the three operators (p = 0.1794). The reproducibility of estimates was good. In 95% of patients, using the Siemens method, the SD of the three estimates of LVEF by operator 1 was ≤ 1.7, operator 2 was ≤ 2.1 and operator 3 was ≤ 1.3. The corresponding values for the Hermes method were ≤ 2.5, ≤ 2.0 and ≤ 2.1. There was no difference in the results of matched pairs of data acquired on different cameras (p = 0.4933).
Conclusion : Software packages for processing GBP studies are not interchangeable. The report should include the name and version of the software package used. Wherever possible, the same package should be used for serial studies. If this is not possible, the report should include the limits of agreement of the different packages. Data acquisition on different cameras did not influence the results.
Article metrics loading...