The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the measured left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and wall motion analysis by the recently introduced quantitative electrocardiographically (ECG)-gated myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed myocardial tomography technique (gated SPECT) (QGS).
We compared technetium-99 m tetrofosmin gated SPECT imaging and contrast ventriculography in the assessment of global and regional left ventricular function in 74 patients with undiagnosed chest pain of whom 27 sustained a previous myocardial infarction.
Linear regression analysis demonstrated that gated SPECT determined LVEF correlated well with LVEF determined from contrast ventriculography (y = 0.95x + 1.9, r2 = 0.84, p < 0.0001). Bland-Altman plot analysis showed no systematic difference between the two sets of values derived from the two imaging approaches over a wide range of LVEF values. Exact agreement of segmental wall motion scores was 460 of 518 (89%) segments with a kappa value of 0.76 (p < 0.0001).
We conclude that gated SPECT imaging is an accurate and reliable clinical tool to accurately measure global and regional left ventricular function.
"Echocardiography is more commonly used for LV function assessment allowing to its availability, low cost and absence of ionizing radiation . Left ventriculography and myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) with gated single-photon emission computed tomography (GSPECT) provides good assessment of the LV function when performed during coronary artery catheterization or myocardial perfusion imaging studies   . "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to define the relationship between SPECT and CTA measured parameters of left ventricular (LV) function and volumes obtained in a single session using SPECT/64-slice CT hybrid imaging device, and in addition, to assess the reproducibility of LV parameters measured using 64-slice CTA.
Seventy-six patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease underwent cardiac CTA and GSPECT in one session using a hybrid SPECT/CT device. LV end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV) and ejection fraction (EF) were measured on each component of the hybrid device. For the CTA component, these parameters were re-measured by the same investigator and by a second investigator with an interval of 3-54 weeks. Corresponding GSPECT and CTA measured parameters were compared. For CTA, intra-observer and inter-observer variability of LV function and volume measurements were calculated.
A very good correlation was found between the GSPECT and CTA measured LVEF (r=0.81), ESV (r=0.90) and EDV (r=0.82). There was a small positive difference by CTA measured LVEF (3.9+/-14.2%), and more prominent positive differences by CTA measured ESV and EDV (9.8+/-14.8 and 44.9+/-23.1cm(3), respectively). There was excellent reproducibility in the measurements of all parameters with very low intra- and inter-observer variability (r=0.93 for EF and 0.98 for EDV and ESV).
Although a good correlation was found between the EF measurements obtained from CTA and SPECT, interchangeable use of EF measurements between the two modalities should be done cautiously and interchangeable use of LV EDV and ESV should be avoided.
European journal of radiology 06/2009; 75(2):154-8. DOI:10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.04.039 · 2.37 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Unlabelled:
The purpose of this study was to verify whether the accuracy of left ventricular parameters related to left ventricular function from gated-SPECT improved or not, using multivariate analysis.
Ninety-six patients with cardiovascular diseases were studied. Gated-SPECT with the QGS software and left ventriculography (LVG) were performed to obtain left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV). Then, multivariate analyses were performed to determine empirical formulas for predicting these parameters. The calculated values of left ventricular parameters were compared with those obtained directly from the QGS software and LVG.
Multivariate analyses were able to improve accuracy in estimation of LVEF, EDV and ESV. Statistically significant improvement was seen in LVEF (from r = 0.6965 to r = 0.8093, p < 0.05). Although not statistically significant, improvements in correlation coefficients were seen in EDV (from r = 0.7199 to r = 0.7595, p = 0.2750) and ESV (from r = 0.5694 to r = 0.5871, p = 0.4281).
The empirical equations with multivariate analysis improved the accuracy in estimating LVEF from gated-SPECT with the QGS software.
Annals of Nuclear Medicine 11/2002; 17(7):575-582. DOI:10.1007/BF03006671 · 1.68 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of three different software packages for the calculation of ejection fraction (EF) and end diastolic volume (EDV) from gated myocardial single photon emission computed tomography studies. Two hundred patients undergoing gated stress myocardial perfusion scans were analysed retrospectively. Patients were grouped as follows: small heart (n=31), normal perfusion scan (n=71), and scan with perfusion defects (n=98). EF and EDV were calculated for each using QGS (Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, CA), 4D-MSPECT (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI), and ECT (Emory University, Atlanta, GA). Bland-Altman plots, repeated measures ANOVA, and linear regression analysis were used to compare methods. Correlation coefficients between the methods for both EF and EDV were high, greater than 0.9. However, Bland-Altman plots revealed a large standard deviation of the difference between methods, preventing the confident estimate of the value of one method from an observation of another. Despite good correlation, the variance between methods was high. These algorithms behave differently, produce widely variable results from one another, and should not be used interchangeably. It may prove prudent for laboratories to independently validate the software algorithm that is chosen against a 'gold standard' using their own population.
Nuclear Medicine Communications 04/2003; 24(3):259-66. DOI:10.1097/01.mnm.0000061047.24401.b6 · 1.67 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.