Annals of Nuclear Cardiology
Online ISSN : 2424-1741
Print ISSN : 2189-3926
ISSN-L : 2189-3926

This article has now been updated. Please use the final version.

Modified Algorithm Using Total Count for Calculating Myocardial Washout Rate in Single-Photon Emission Computerized Tomography
Hideyuki MiyauchiRyohei OnoTakashi IimoriKoichi SawadaKeisuke HoshiKen-ichi HiranoYoshio Kobayashi
Author information
JOURNAL FREE ACCESS FULL-TEXT HTML Advance online publication

Article ID: 22-00172

Details
Abstract

Background: The arithmetic mean of washout rate (WR) (namely, AMWR) of each segment is a commonly used algorithm for calculating WR from a polar map in single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT). However, in this algorithm, uneven radiotracer uptake among segments affects WR calculation. To solve this possible issue, we formulated a modified algorithm for calculating WR based on the total count (namely, TCWR).
Methods: The WR of iodine-123-β-methyl-p-iodophenylpentadecanoic acid (BMIPP) was calculated using TCWR and AMWR, and WR values using TCWR and AMWR were compared by disease. Participants included those without cardiovascular diseases (normal), those with CD36 deficiency, triglyceride deposit cardiomyovasculopathy (TGCV), TGCV with old myocardial infarction (OMI), and non-TGCV with OMI.
Results: WR values using TCWR and AMWR did not differ significantly in the following groups: normal, 27.4 ± 8.5 and 27.3 ± 8.5% (p = 0.97); CD36 deficiency, -3.2 ± 6.5 and -4.1 ± 7.4% (p = 0.81); TGCV, 2.4 ± 6.3 and 2.2 ± 6.3% (p = 0.93); and TGCV with OMI, -0.9 ± 7.6 and -3.7 ± 8.4% (p = 0.32). However, AMWR showed a lower WR than TCWR in non-TGCV with OMI (4.8 ± 8.7 and 18.9 ± 6.7%, p = 0.0008).
Conclusions: TCWR is suitable for calculating WR using SPECT polar maps even in cases with heterogeneous radiotracer uptake, such as OMIs. TCWR may be applied to measuring the WR of radiopharmaceuticals other than BMIPP in investigating the pathophysiology of heart diseases.

Content from these authors
© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2022
feedback
Top