QGS ejection fraction reproducibility in gated SPECT comparing pre-filtered and post-filtered reconstruction

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)


Introduction: The aim of this investigation was to compare the QGS determined functional parameters using pre-filtering to that using post-filtering in the gated myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) reconstruction process. Methodology: A total of 25 patient files were examined, each with both a gated rest and gated stress study, and were reconstructed using two strategies. The first employed pre-filtering with a Butterworth low pass filter (order 4.0 and cut-off 0.21) and the second employed post-filtering with a Butterworth low pass filter (order 5.0 and cut-off 0.21). Following reconstruction and reorientation, gated short axis slices were evaluated with QGS software. Results: The mean ejection fraction for the post-filtered data was 49.5% (95% CI, 45.8-53.1%) and for the pre-filtered data was 54.8% (95% CI, 51.4-58.1%). Excellent correlation was demonstrated between the pre- and post-filtered ejection fractions with a correlation coefficient of 0.964. The mean difference between matched pairs of pre- and post-filtered ejection fraction data was 5.3% (95% CI, 4.3-6.3%). The match pair t-test demonstrated a statistically significant difference between matched pairs (P<0.0001) and a statistically significant difference was shown between the means (P=0.005). Conclusion: The impact of performing pre-filtering on data in the reconstruction process is significant with a 5.3% increase in the calculated ejection fraction over post-filtering. Clearly, this has the potential to undermine diagnostic and prognostic roles of functional parameters.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)57-59
Number of pages3
JournalNuclear Medicine Communications
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2006


Dive into the research topics of 'QGS ejection fraction reproducibility in gated SPECT comparing pre-filtered and post-filtered reconstruction'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this