Title

Evaluation of Left Ventricular Endocardial Volumes and Ejection Fractions Computed from Gated Perfusion SPECT with MR: Comparision of Two Methods

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

11-2001

Publication Title

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

Abstract

Background. Two methods of computing left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction (EF) from 8-frame gated perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) were compared with each other and with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Methods and Results. Thirty-five subjects underwent 8-frame gated dual-isotope SPECT imaging and 12- to 16-frame gated MR imaging. Endocardial boundaries on short-axis MR images were hand traced by experts blinded to any SPECT results. Volumes and EF were computed with the use of Simpson's rule. SPECT images were analyzed for the same functional variables with the use of 2 automatic programs, Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) and the Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb). The mean difference between MR and SPECT EF was 0.008 for ECTb and 0.08 for QGS. QGS showed a slight trend toward higher correlation for EF (r = 0.72, SE of the ESTIMATE = 0.08) than ECTb (r = 0.70, SE of the ESTIMATE = 0.09). For both SPECT methods, left ventricular volumes were similarly correlated with MR, although SPECT volumes were higher than MR values by approximately 30%. Conclusions. QGS and ECTb values of cardiac function computed from 8-frame gated perfusion SPECT correlate very well with each other and correlate well with MR. Averaged over all subjects, ECTb measurements of EF are not significantly different from MR values but QGS significantly underestimates the MR values.

Comments

This work was funded in part by NIH R01HL42052.

Original Citation

Faber TL, Vansant JP, Pettigrew RI, Galt JR, Blais M, Chatzimavroudis G, Cooke CD, Folks RD, Waldrop SM, Gurtler-Krawczynska E, Wittry MD, Garcia EV. Evaluation of left ventricular endocardial volumes and ejection fractions computed from gated perfusion SPECT with magnetic resonance imaging: Comparison of two methods. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology. 2001;8:645-651.

Volume

8

Issue

6

DOI

10.1067/mnc.2001.117173