论文部分内容阅读
①目的比较９９ｍＴｃ－ＭＩＢＩ门控心肌断层显像和门控心血池显像对左心室射血分数（ＬＶＥＦ）及左心室壁运动测定结果及临床应用价值。②方法对４例正常人和２９例冠心病病人分别进行了门控心肌断层显像和门控心血池显像检查，对结果进行比较分析。③结果冠心病病人门控心肌断层显像测得ＬＶＥＦ与正常人比较差异有显著性（ｔ＝５．６８，Ｐ＜０．０５）；门控心血池显像也得到相同的结果（ｔ＝５．００，Ｐ＜０．０５）。两种方法对不同ＬＶＥＦ状态下２９例冠心病病人检出例数差异无显著性（χ２＝０．０８～０．１３，Ｐ＞０．０５）。两种方法对左心室ＬＡＯ４５°位置３个部位的不同幅度和类型的室壁运动判断结果差异无显著性（χ２＝０．１２～０．７０，Ｐ＞０．０５）。３３例受检者两种方法测定的ＬＶＥＦ呈高度正相关（ｒ＝０．８１，Ｐ＜０．０１）。④结论门控心肌断层显像对冠心病病人ＬＶＥＦ测定和左心室壁运动判断，与门控心血池显像一样可提供较准确、直观的结果，并且本法可准确定位梗塞区大小、范围及程度
Objective To compare left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular wall motion measurement and clinical value of 99mTc-MIBI gated myocardial imaging and gated cardiac pool imaging. ② Methods Gated myocardial perfusion imaging and gated cardiac pool imaging were performed on 4 normal subjects and 29 patients with coronary heart disease. The results were compared and analyzed. Results There was a significant difference between the LVEF and normal controls in patients with coronary heart disease (t = 5.68, P <0.05). The same results were obtained in gated heart pool imaging (t = 5.00, P <0.05). There was no significant difference between the two methods in 29 cases of coronary heart disease under different LVEF status (χ2 = 0.08-0.13, P> 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two methods in judging the amplitude and type of wall motion at three locations of LAO45 ° (χ2 = 0.12-0.70, P> 0.05). The LVEF measured by the two methods in 33 cases was highly correlated (r = 0.81, P <0.01). ④ Conclusion Gated myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with coronary heart disease LVEF determination and left ventricular wall motion judgments, as with gated blood pool imaging can provide more accurate and intuitive results, and this method can accurately locate the infarct size, size and degree