跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT01047150
NCT01047150Unknown不适用

The Comparison of the Necessity of Repeat Myocardial Perfusion SPECT Studies Between Tc-99m Tetrofosmin and Tc-99m Sestamibi

Cardiac Imaging of Augusta1 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 250 人开始时间: 2010年1月最近更新:
适应症

试验速览

阶段
不适用
发起方
入组人数
250
试验地点
1
主要终点
Number of studies repeated.

研究概览

简要总结

Research Questions:

  1. Is there a significant difference between the causal repeat rate of myocardial perfusion studies for Tc99m tetrofosmin and Tc99m sestamibi?
  2. Is there a significant difference in the causal repeat rate of myocardial perfusion studies for Tc99m tetrofosmin and Tc99m sestamibi if an independent technologist reviewer blinded to the radiopharmaceutical makes the decision to repeat the study?
  3. Is there a significant difference in the quantitative diagnostic measures reported between the original and the acceptable repeated studies?

详细描述

There are two commonly used Tc-99m based radiopharmaceuticals useful in the diagnosis and localization of regions of reversible myocardial ischemia in the presence or absence of infarction under exercise and rest conditions. One is Tc-99m tetrofosmin (Tc-99m-1,2-bis[bis(2-ethoxyethyl) phosphino] ethane), the other is Tc-99m sestamibi (Tc-99m- methoxyisobutylisonitrile). When performing a myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) study, extracardiac subdiaphragmatic activity adjacent to the myocardium can cause artifacts in the inferior wall and can be detrimental to the accuracy of the study1,2. Following acquisition, MPS studies are routinely checked for potential imaging artifacts. When a separation between the extracardiac activity cannot clearly be distinguished from the myocardium, the study should be repeated. Repeating the SPECT study can affect the efficiency of a lab as well as having a negative influence on patient comfort and overall satisfaction. The goal of this study is to determine if there is a significant difference in the number of studies that should be repeated between the two commonly used radiopharmaceuticals.

研究设计

研究类型
Observational
观察模型
Case Control
时间视角
Cross Sectional

入排标准

性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

  • Patients receiving sestamibi MPI study or tetrofosmin MPI study

排除标准

  • Thallium or dual isotope MPI study

结局指标

主要结局

Number of studies repeated.

时间窗: four weeks

次要结局

  • Number of studies that should have been repeated(two weeks after data collection)

研究者

发起方
Cardiac Imaging of Augusta
申办方类型
Other

研究点 (1)

Loading locations...

相似试验