Autor(es):
Cunha, Lídia 
; Lamego, Juliana ; Ferreira, Sara ; Lemos, Joana ; Vieira, Domingos ; Metello, Luís F.
Data: 2010
Identificador Persistente: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.22/2361
Origem: Repositório Científico do Instituto Politécnico do Porto
Descrição
Introduction
Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (MPI) is a very important tool
in the assessment of
Coronary Artery Disease
(
CAD
)
patient
s
and worldwide data demonstrate an increasingly wider use and clinical acceptance.
Nevertheless, it is a complex process and it is quite vulnerable concerning the amount and type of
possible artefacts, some of them affecting seriously the overall quality
and the clinical
utility
of the obtained
data. One
of
the most in
convenient
artefacts
, but
relatively
frequent
(
20% of the cases
)
,
is
relate
d
with
patient
motion
during
image
acquisition
. Mostly, in those situations,
specific
data
is
evaluated and a
decisi
on is made
between A) accept the results as they are
, consider
ing
that t
he “noise” so introduced
does not
affect too seriously the
final
clinical information, or B) to repeat the acquisition process
.
Another
possib
ility
could be
to use the “
Motion
Correcti
on Software” provided within the software package included
in any actual gamma camera.
The aim of this study is to compare the quality of the final images
, obtained
after the application of motion correction software and after
the repetition of
image
acqui
sition.
Material and
Methods
Thirty
cases of MPI affected by
Motion
Artefacts
and repeated
, were
used.
A
group of three, independent
(blinded for the differences of origin)
expert Nuclear Medicine Clinicians had
been invited to
evaluate the
30
sets of thre
e images
-
one set for each
patient
-
being
(
A)
original image
,
motion
uncorrected
,
(B)
original image, motion corrected,
and (C) second acquisition
image, without motion
. The results so
obtained were
statistically
analysed
.
Results
and Conclusion
Results
obtained demonstrate that the use of the
Motion
Correction Software is
useful
essentiall
y if the
amplitude of movement
is not too important (with this
specific quantification
found hard to define
precisely
,
due to discrepancies between clinicians and other
factors
, namely
between
one
to another brand); when
that is not the case and the
amplitude of
movement is too important
, the
n the percentage of agreement
between clinicians
is much higher and the repetition of the examination is
unanimously
considered
ind
ispensable.
