BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the potential of the automated calculation of the left ventricular ejection fraction from gated myocardial positron emission tomography (PET) scans. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 20 patients who underwent both gated fluorine 18 deoxyglucose (FDG)-PET and equilibrium radionuclide angiography (ERNA). Gated PET data were analyzed by 2 independent programs (ie, quantitative gated single photon emission computed tomography [QGS]) originally developed for gated single photon emission computed tomography studies and functional polarmap (FPM) originally developed for the analysis of (functional) dynamic PET studies. ERNA data were used as the gold standard. RESULTS: Both QGS and FPM left ventricular ejection fraction results correlated highly with ERNA (y = 0.90 x x-5.9, r = 0.86, P < .0001; y = 0.80 x x+3.3, r = 0.84, P < .0001, respectively). The correlation between FPM and QGS left ventricular ejection fraction results was even higher (y = 0.89 x x+8.6, r = 0.97, P < .0001). Bland-Altman plots showed systematic differences in the left ventricular ejection fraction of -9.6% +/- 7.5% (QGS vs ERNA), -3.8% +/- 7.8% (FPM vs ERNA), and -5.8% +/- 3.5% (QGS vs FPM). Further comparison of the left ventricular volumes revealed systematic difference between QGS and FPM. Our results indicate that the correlation between the different left ventricular ejection fractions shows little sensitivity to errors in the left ventricular volumes; however, the exact relationship is influenced by these errors. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that the automated determination of the left ventricular ejection fraction from gated PET data has significant potential; its results are highly and significantly correlated with ERNA. However, the methods presented here require additional calibration before final accuracy and clinical applicability can be determined.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the potential of the automated calculation of the left ventricular ejection fraction from gated myocardial positron emission tomography (PET) scans. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 20 patients who underwent both gated fluorine 18 deoxyglucose (FDG)-PET and equilibrium radionuclide angiography (ERNA). Gated PET data were analyzed by 2 independent programs (ie, quantitative gated single photon emission computed tomography [QGS]) originally developed for gated single photon emission computed tomography studies and functional polarmap (FPM) originally developed for the analysis of (functional) dynamic PET studies. ERNA data were used as the gold standard. RESULTS: Both QGS and FPM left ventricular ejection fraction results correlated highly with ERNA (y = 0.90 x x-5.9, r = 0.86, P < .0001; y = 0.80 x x+3.3, r = 0.84, P < .0001, respectively). The correlation between FPM and QGS left ventricular ejection fraction results was even higher (y = 0.89 x x+8.6, r = 0.97, P < .0001). Bland-Altman plots showed systematic differences in the left ventricular ejection fraction of -9.6% +/- 7.5% (QGS vs ERNA), -3.8% +/- 7.8% (FPM vs ERNA), and -5.8% +/- 3.5% (QGS vs FPM). Further comparison of the left ventricular volumes revealed systematic difference between QGS and FPM. Our results indicate that the correlation between the different left ventricular ejection fractions shows little sensitivity to errors in the left ventricular volumes; however, the exact relationship is influenced by these errors. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that the automated determination of the left ventricular ejection fraction from gated PET data has significant potential; its results are highly and significantly correlated with ERNA. However, the methods presented here require additional calibration before final accuracy and clinical applicability can be determined.
Authors: L L Johnson; S A Verdesca; W Y Aude; R C Xavier; L T Nott; M W Campanella; G Germano Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: K Yamashita; N Tamaki; Y Yonekura; H Ohtani; H Saji; T Mukai; H Kambara; C Kawai; T Ban; J Konishi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1989-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: K Yamashita; N Tamaki; Y Yonekura; H Ohtani; Y Magata; R Nohara; H Kambara; C Kawai; T Ban; J Konishi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1991-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Heinrich R Schelbert; Robert Beanlands; Frank Bengel; Juhani Knuuti; Marcelo Dicarli; Josef Machac; Randolph Patterson Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2003 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Guido Germano; Paul B Kavanagh; Piotr J Slomka; Serge D Van Kriekinge; Geoff Pollard; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Wolfgang M Schaefer; Claudia S A Lipke; Bernd Nowak; Hans Juergen Kaiser; Arno Buecker; Gabriele A Krombach; Udalrich Buell; Harald P Kühl Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-02-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Kirkeith Lertsburapa; Alan W Ahlberg; Timothy M Bateman; Deborah Katten; Lyndy Volker; S James Cullom; Gary V Heller Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2008-09-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Jacob Freiberg; Jens D Hove; Klaus F Kofoed; Thomas Fritz-Hansen; Søren Holm; Henrik B Larsson; Henning Kelbaek Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2004 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: George Saab; Robert A Dekemp; Heikki Ukkonen; Terrence D Ruddy; Guido Germano; Robert S B Beanlands Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2003 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Josef Machac; Stephen L Bacharach; Timothy M Bateman; Jeroen J Bax; Robert Beanlands; Frank Bengel; Steven R Bergmann; Richard C Brunken; James Case; Dominique Delbeke; Marcelo F DiCarli; Ernest V Garcia; Richard A Goldstein; Robert J Gropler; Mark Travin; Randolph Patterson; Heinrich R Schelbert Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.872