Left Ventricular Function: Correlation of Quantitative Gated SPECT and MR Imaging over a Wide Range of Values

Abstract

In 21 patients, the authors compared results with quantitative gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) to results with magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), end-systolic volume (LVESV), and ejection fraction (LVEF). Between the two methods, correlations were good for LVEF (r = 0.85), LVEDV (r = 0.94), and LVESV (r = 0.95). Quantitative gated SPECT can help determine LVEF, LVEDV, and LVESV.

Development and validation of a new automatic algorithm for quantification of left ventricular volumes and function in gated myocardial perfusion SPECT using cardiac magnetic resonance as reference standard

“…The correlation coefficients between MPS and CMR for LV volumes and EF were similar between Segment and the four other MPS software packages, and in line with results reported in earlier studies [10][11][12][13]16,[14][15][17][18][19]. In the current study the EDV and ESV were underestimated by MPS, as compared to CMR, when using QGS, MyoMetrix, ECTb and Exini.…”

“…In the current study the EDV and ESV were underestimated by MPS, as compared to CMR, when using QGS, MyoMetrix, ECTb and Exini. This underestimation has been observed in previous studies, with the same magnitude [12][13] or with a lower magnitude [11,10,15]. The lower magnitude of the underestimation may be explained by older turbo gradient echo CMR sequences in those studies compared to the current standard SSFP imaging that was used in the current study.…”

“…Several previous studies have compared LV volumes quantified by those algorithms to the reference standard, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) [9]. In the majority of the studies the end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) were underestimated by MPS [10][11][12][13][14][15]. End-diastolic volume by MPS has also been shown to range from overestimation to underestimation compared to CMR depending on the software package used [16][17][18].…”

Triple rule-out CT coronary angiography: three of a kind?

“…More than 60% of patients with chest pain who are admitted to the hospital do not turn out to have ACS, emphasizing the need to improve the early triage of patients with acute chest pain. In general, triage is based on the initial clinical assessment including an electrocardiogram (ECG), serial serum markers measurements, echocardiography, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy or cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. While management is relatively straightforward in case of ECG changes and elevated serum markers, a considerable number of patients presents with both serum markers and an ECG that are either within normal limits or inconclusive.…”

Hypertension control is needed in elderly marathon runners!

“…It was shown that in general practice the two-dimensional echocardiographic approach was the most accurate estimator of left ventricular mass and volumes in both controls and athletes. For research purposes, however, CMR remains the most accurate and reliable method to assess cardiac anatomy and function [24][25][26][27]. In a next study we addressed the question of whether training-induced left ventricular hypertrophy in athletes is a physiological rather than a pathophysiological phenomenon [28].…”