Ejection Fraction from MUGA: Comparisons between Xeleris and Pegasys Workstations

Authors

  • Sasithorn Amnuaywattakorn Department of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Sasivimol Promma Department of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Suchawadee Musikarat Department of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Tanawat Tawonwong Department of Radiology, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand

Keywords:

MUGA, Left ventricular ejection fraction

Abstract

Background: MUGA scans have been well utilized to evaluate left ventricular function, popularly as a non-invasive tool for quantification of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) values. Therefore, it is often requested to periodically evaluate left ventricular function in oncologic patients who are required for cardiotoxic-prone chemotherapy such as Doxorubicin based regimen. Withholding or cessation of the prescribed chemotherapy would be necessary if LVEFs were significantly declined

Objective: To correlate individual LVEF values calculating between two different manufacturing workstations.

Methods: One-hundred MUGA raw data from oncologic female patients were included. All data were loaded in two different manufacturing workstations, namely Pegasys and Xeleris. LVEF values were subsequently calculated using semi-automated method of gated analysis software in each workstation. The 2 sets of LVEF values were correlated.

Results: The agreement between the two workstations was high (r2= 0.93). The differences in LVEF values between two workstations were acceptable (within ± 5%).

Conclusions: Our result indicated similarity of LVEF values between two different manufacturing workstations. Therefore, these workstations may be used interchangeably in certain situations.

 

 

References

Fair JR, Heintz PH, Telepak RJ. Evaluation of new data processing algorithms for planar gated ventriculography (MUGA). J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2009;10(3):2977.

Scheiner J, Sinusas A, Wittry MD, et al. Society of Nuclear Medicine procedure guideline for gated equilibrium radionuclide ventriculography 2002. http://interactive.snm.org/docs/pg_ch01_0403.pdf. Published June 15, 2002. Accessed February 8, 2017.

Bland JM, Altman DG. Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;22(1):85-93.

Downloads

Published

2017-09-30

How to Cite

1.
Amnuaywattakorn S, Promma S, Musikarat S, Tawonwong T. Ejection Fraction from MUGA: Comparisons between Xeleris and Pegasys Workstations. Res Med J [internet]. 2017 Sep. 30 [cited 2025 Dec. 26];40(3):23-8. available from: https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ramajournal/article/view/70343

Issue

Section

Original Articles