The evaluation of clinical usefulness on application of Half-time acquisition factor in Gated Cardiac Blood Pool scan Dong-Hun Lee

Contents Introduction Material and Method Result Clinical Limits Conclusion

Introduction Gated Cardiac Blood Pool scan Text Scan time Text Estimate the wall motion Scan time Text Text Great reproducibility Gated Cardiac Blood Pool scan Correct EF Non-invasive

Introduction The evaluation of clinical usefulness through LVEF comparative evalution according to Half-time application by using image processing technique1) 1) Onco.Flash(Pixon®method), siemens Full-time EF Evaluation Half-time (Onco.Flash) Half-time

Material and Method Object Period 11 39 50 patients who were tested Gated Cardiac Blood Pool Scan (Nuclear Medicine of ASAN Medical Center) Object 11 39 Period From Jun. 2008 To Aug. 2008

Material and Method ECAM Gamma Camera Equipment Collimator (SIEMENSE) Equipment Collimator LEHR collimator Syngo software Ver. 7.7 Minitab Statistical Package Program Ver. 13.1 Analysis tool

Material and Method - Matrix : 64ⅹ64 - ECG window level : ±10% Acquiring LAO Full-time(6000 Kcts) and Half-time(3000 Kcts) images of left ventricle continuously in same acquisition parameter to assess LVEF parameter - Frame : 20 - Matrix : 64ⅹ64 - ECG window level : ±10% - Labeling method : in vivo method - Automated region of interest - Onco. Flash : 30 % filtering

Material and Method Descriptives Quantitative Paired t-test analysis One-way Anova test Quantitative analysis Qualitative analysis Blind test

Result Descriptives of Full-time, Half-time, Half-time(Onco. Flash) image’s EF Full - time Half-time (Onco.Flash) Half - time EF (%) 69.1 ± 7.6 EF (%) 68.7 ± 8.4 EF (%) 68.2 ± 8.4

significant difference Result Difference of Full-time vs Half-time(Onco. Flash) EF(%) No statistically significant difference t-Value = 0.63 p-Value = 0.531

significant difference Result Difference of Full-time vs Half-time EF(%) No statistically significant difference t-Value = -1.68 p-Value = 0.100

Result Difference of Half-time vs Half-time(Onco. Flash) EF(%) statistically significant difference t-Value = -2.25 p-Value = 0.029

significant difference Result Difference of Full-time vs Half-time vs Half-time(Onco. Flash) EF(%) No statistically significant difference One-way ANOVA: Full time EF(%), Half time EF(%), Half time(onco.) EF(%) Analysis of Variance Source DF SS MS F P Factor 2 17.5 8.7 0.13 0.877 Error 147 9784.1 66.6 Total 149 9801.6 Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev Level N Mean StDev -+---------+---------+---------+----- Full tim 50 69.050 7.604 (--------------*---------------) Half tim 50 68.222 8.433 (--------------*--------------) Half tim 50 68.736 8.411 (--------------*--------------) -+---------+---------+---------+----- Pooled StDev = 8.158 66.0 67.5 69.0 70.5 F = 0.13, p = 0.877

Half-time (Onco.Flash) Result Blind test for qualitative assessing the wall motion Full - time Half-time (Onco.Flash) Half - time

Clinical Limits This study needs an estimation of difference about ejection fraction as a change of Onco. Flash parameter Comparative analysis about difference of ejection fraction between nomal and abnomal groups. The study should acquire a confidence of result by more clinical study and statistical data If Onco. Flash that is acquired by longer time, not half time, is applied. We expect the better image will be acquired

Conclusion The application of Half-time using Onco. Flash is expected that it can apply a result of statistical analysis The accessibility of exam will increase because of the reduced scan time (Full counts : 10min, Half counts: 5min ) Patients will feel comfortable and the patient’s satisfaction will increase

Thank You !