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

2. Contents Introduction Material and Method Result Clinical Limits
Conclusion

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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 To Aug. 2008

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. 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

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

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

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

13. 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
Error
Total
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev
Full tim ( * )
Half tim ( * )
Half tim ( * )
Pooled StDev =
F = 0.13, p = 0.877

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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Thank You !