Multicenter Evaluation of the Feasibility of Clinical Implementation of SPECT Myocardial Blood Flow Measurement: Intersite Variability and Imaging Time
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Single-center studies have shown that single photon emission computed tomography myocardial blood flow (MBF) measurement is accurate compared with MBF measured with microspheres in a porcine model, positron emission tomography, and angiography. Clinical implementation requires consistency across multiple sites. The study goal is to determine the intersite processing repeatability of single photon emission computed tomography MBF and the additional camera time required. Methods: Five sites (Canada, Italy, Japan, Germany, and Singapore) each acquired 25 to 35 MBF studies at rest and with pharmacological stress using technetium-99m-tetrofosmin on a pinhole-collimated cadmium-zinc-telluride–based cardiac single photon emission computed tomography camera with standardized list-mode imaging and processing protocols. Patients had intermediate to high pretest probability of coronary artery disease. MBF was measured locally and at a core laboratory using commercially available software. The time a room was occupied for an MBF study was compared with that for a standard rest/stress myocardial perfusion study. Results: With motion correction, the overall correlation in MBF between core laboratory and local site was 0.93 (range, 0.87–0.97) at rest, 0.90 (range, 0.84–0.96) at stress, and 0.84 (range, 0.70–0.92) for myocardial flow reserve. The local-to-core difference in global MBF (bias -MBF ) was 5.4% (−3.8% to 14.8%; median [interquartile range]) at rest and 5.4% (−6.2% to 19.4%) at stress. Between the 5 sites, bias -MBF ranged from −1.6% to 11.0% at rest and from −1.9% to 16.3% at stress; the interquartile range in bias -MBF was between 9.3% (4.8%–14.0%) and 22.3% (−10.3% to 12.0%) at rest and between 17.0% (−11.3% to 5.6%) and 33.3% (−10.4% to 22.9%) at stress and was not significantly different between most sites. Both bias and interquartile range were like previously reported interobserver variability and less than the SD of the test-retest difference of 30%. The overall difference in myocardial flow reserve was 1.52% (−10.6% to 11.3%). There were no significant differences between with and without motion correction. The average additional acquisition time varied between sites from 44 to 79 minutes. Conclusions: The average bias -MBF and bias -MFR values were small with standard deviations substantially less than the test-retest variability. This demonstrates that MBF can be measured consistently across multiple sites and further supports that this technique can be reliably implemented. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03427749.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».