title: Evaluation of new data processing algorithms for planar gated ventriculography (MUGA).
abstract: Before implementing one of two new LVEF radionuclide gated ventriculogram (MUGA) systems, the results from 315 consecutive parallel patient studies were evaluated. Each gamma-camera acquisition was simultaneously processed by semi-automatic Medasys Pinnacle and by fully-automatic and semi-automatic Philips nuclear medicine computer systems. The Philips systems yielded LVEF results within +/- 5 LVEF percentage points of the Medasys system in fewer than half of the studies. The remaining values were higher or lower than those from the long-used Medasys system. These differences might have changed cancer patient chemotherapy clinical decisions in 54 cases (17% of studies) for one of the systems. As a result, our institution elected not to implement either new system.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
authors.forename: Joanna R
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Fair
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
authors.forename: Philip H
authors.initials: PH
authors.lastname: Heintz
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
authors.forename: Robert J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Telepak
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D004912:Erythrocytes / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D015637:Gated Blood-Pool Imaging / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals; D013667:Technetium
chemical_list: D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals; D013667:Technetium
references.citation: Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
references.pmid: 2868172
references.citation: Nucl Med Commun. 2004 Dec;25(12):1197-202
references.pmid: 15640779
references.citation: Am J Med. 1987 Jun;82(6):1109-18
references.pmid: 3605130
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 1989 Apr;30(4):542-7
references.pmid: 2544696
references.citation: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2006 Oct;22(5):683-4
references.pmid: 16972145
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med. 1985;10(3-4):97-110
references.pmid: 3996451
references.citation: Semin Oncol. 2006 Feb;33(1):2-14
references.pmid: 16473642
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 1997 Apr;15(4):1318-32
references.pmid: 9193323
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2001 Dec;42(12):1773-9
references.pmid: 11752072
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2001 Mar 1;19(5):1444-54
references.pmid: 11230490
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2001 Mar;42(3):454-9
references.pmid: 11337523
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med. 1990;17(3-4):106-10
references.pmid: 2279489
references.citation: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2006 Jun-Aug;22(3-4):407-16
references.pmid: 16328851
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 1990 Apr;31(4):450-6
references.pmid: 2324820
references.citation: J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2001 Oct;14(10):994-1000
references.pmid: 11593204
references.citation: Nucl Med Commun. 2005 Apr;26(4):351-9
references.pmid: 15753795
references.citation: Am J Cardiol. 1971 Nov;28(5):575-80
references.pmid: 5116974
references.citation: Cancer. 2002 Jan 1;94(1):25-36
references.pmid: 11815957
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 1997 Jun;38(6):942-8
references.pmid: 9189147
references.citation: Circulation. 1977 Dec;56(6):1024-8
references.pmid: 923040