Search

Background: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of gated-SPECT (GSPECT) and gated-PET (GPET) in the assessment of left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volumes (EDVs), end-systolic volumes (ESVs) and LV ejection fractions (LVEFs) among patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI).Methods: One hundred and sixty-eight consecutive patients with MI who underwent GSPECT and GPET were included. Of them, 76 patients underwent CMR in addition to the two imaging modalities. The measurements of LV volumes and LVEF were performed using Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS), Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTB), and 4D-MSPECT (4DM).Results: The correlation between GPET, GSPECT, and CMR were excellent for LV EDV (r = 0.855 to 0.914), ESV (r = 0.852 to 0.949), and LVEF (r = 0.618 to 0.820), as calculated from QGS, ECTB, and 4DM. In addition, subgroup analysis revealed that EDV, ESV, and LVEF measured by GPET were accurate in patients with different extents of total perfusion defect (TPD), viable myocardium, and perfusion/metabolic mismatch. Furthermore, multivariate regression analysis identified that mismatch score was associated with the difference in EDV (P < 0.05) measurements between GPET and CMR.Conclusions: In patients with MI, LV volumes and LVEF scores measured by both GSPECT and GPET imaging were comparable to those determined by CMR, but should not be interchangeable in individual patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To compare the accuracy of end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (EDV, ESV) and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) measured by both GSPECT and GPET, using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) as a reference. Furthermore, the impacts of severe perfusion defects, akinetic/dyskinetic segments, and residual viable myocardium on the accuracy of LV functional parameters were investigated. Methods: Ninety-six consecutive patients with LV aneurysm and LV dysfunction (LVEF 32 ± 9%) diagnosed by CMR were studied with GSPECT and GPET. EDV, ESV, and LVEF were calculated using QGS software. Results: Correlations of volumes were excellent ( r 0.81-0.86) and correlation of LVEF was moderate ( r 0.65-0.76) between GSPECT vs CMR and between GPET vs CMR. Compared with CMR, ESV was overestimated by GSPECT ( P < .01) and underestimated by GPET ( P < .0001); EDV was underestimated by GPET ( P < .001); LVEF was underestimated by GSPECT but overestimated by GPET (both P < .001). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that the number of segments with severe perfusion defects ( P < .001) was the only independent factor which was correlated to the EDV difference between GSPECT and CMR, the number of akinetic/dyskinetic segments with absent wall thickening (WT) was the only independent factor which was significantly correlated to the differences of ESV and LVEF measurements between GSPECT vs CMR and between GPET vs CMR ( P < .0001), respectively. Neither the mismatch score nor the segments with viable myocardium were correlated to the differences of LV volumes and LVEF measurements between different imaging modalities. Conclusions: In LV aneurysm patients, LV volumes and LVEF measured by both GSPECT and GPET imaging correlated well with those determined by CMR, but should not be interchangeable in individual patients. The accuracy of LVEF measured by GSPECT and GPET was affected by the akinetic/dyskinetic segments with absent WT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]