PubMed · 2004 · 60 citations · 19 references
MedicineCardiologyNuclear MedicineCardiac Nuclear MedicineDiagnostic ImagingNuclear CardiologyCardiac AssessmentCardiac ImagingCardiovascular ImagingCoronary Artery ImagingLeft Ventricular Function AssessmentMyocardial Perfusion ImagingCardiac Pet ImagingCardiovascular DiagnosticsCoronary Artery Disease ImagingLeft Ventricular ImagingLeft Ventricular Systolic FunctionLeft Ventricular Volumetric AnalysisQuantitative Cardiac ImagingVentricular Ejection Fraction Assessment
UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to validate Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) and 4D-MSPECT for assessing left ventricular end-diastolic and systolic volumes (EDV and ESV, respectively) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from gated (18)F-FDG PET. METHODS: Forty-four patients with severe coronary artery disease were examined with gated (18)F-FDG PET (8 gates per cardiac cycle). EDV, ESV, and LVEF were calculated from gated (18)F-FDG PET using QGS and 4D-MSPECT. Within 2 d (median), cardiovascular cine MRI (cMRI) (20 gates per cardiac cycle) was done as a reference. RESULTS: QGS failed to accurately detect myocardial borders in 1 patient; 4D-MSPECT, in 2 patients. For the remaining 42 patients, correlation between the results of gated (18)F-FDG PET and cMRI was high for EDV (R = 0.94 for QGS and 0.94 for 4D-MSPECT), ESV (R = 0.95 for QGS and 0.95 for 4D-MSPECT), and LVEF (R = 0.94 for QGS and 0.90 for 4D-MSPECT). QGS significantly (P < 0.0001) underestimated LVEF, whereas no other parameter differed significantly between gated (18)F-FDG PET and cMRI for either algorithm. CONCLUSION: Despite small systematic differences that, among other aspects, limit interchangeability, agreement between gated (18)F-FDG PET and cMRI is good across a wide range of clinically relevant volumes and LVEF values assessed by QGS and 4D-MSPECT.
19
Automatic quantification of ejection fraction from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT.
Guido Germano, Hosen Kiat, Paul Kavanagh et al. · PubMed · 1995 · 1.2K citations