BACKGROUND: Gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) with automated methods allows the quantitative assessment of left ventricular function and perfusion; however, its accuracy must be defined for patients with large earlier infarctions and severe rest perfusion defects, in whom the estimation of endocardial and epicardial borders might be more difficult, even with automated edge-detection techniques. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively compared the automated measurements of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and volumes from rest-injected gated Technetium 99m (Tc99m) perfusion SPECT with equilibrium radionuclide angiocardiography (ERNA) in 62 patients and the assessment of regional function with echocardiography in 22 patients. Forty-six patients had an earlier myocardial infarction (mean defect size, 34% of left ventricle; SD, 12.7%; range, 8% to 56%); 27 patients had large defects (> or = 20% of left ventricle; LVEF range, 8% to 75%). LVEF, as determined with Cedars-Sinai software (quantitative gated SPECT), correlated well with ERNA (r = 0.941; y = 1.003x + 1.15; P<.0001; SE of the estimate = 6.3%; mean difference -1.3% for LVEF) in the entire study population and in the subgroups of patients with an earlier infarction, severe defects, and large infarctions (> or = 20% of the left ventricle). A correlation existed between gated SPECT and ERNA volumes (r = 0.882, y = 1.040x - 14.7, P<.0001 for end-diastolic volume; r = 0.954, y = 1.147x - 13.9, P<.0001 for end-systolic volumes with the count-ratio technique), but with wider limits of agreement. The exact segmental score agreement between gated SPECT and echocardiography for regional function was 79.8% (281 of 352, kappa = 0.682). CONCLUSIONS: Automated gated SPECT provides an accurate assessment of ejection fraction and regional function, even in the presence of an earlier myocardial infarction with large perfusion defects and significant left ventricular dysfunction.
BACKGROUND: Gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) with automated methods allows the quantitative assessment of left ventricular function and perfusion; however, its accuracy must be defined for patients with large earlier infarctions and severe rest perfusion defects, in whom the estimation of endocardial and epicardial borders might be more difficult, even with automated edge-detection techniques. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively compared the automated measurements of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and volumes from rest-injected gated Technetium 99m (Tc99m) perfusion SPECT with equilibrium radionuclide angiocardiography (ERNA) in 62 patients and the assessment of regional function with echocardiography in 22 patients. Forty-six patients had an earlier myocardial infarction (mean defect size, 34% of left ventricle; SD, 12.7%; range, 8% to 56%); 27 patients had large defects (> or = 20% of left ventricle; LVEF range, 8% to 75%). LVEF, as determined with Cedars-Sinai software (quantitative gated SPECT), correlated well with ERNA (r = 0.941; y = 1.003x + 1.15; P<.0001; SE of the estimate = 6.3%; mean difference -1.3% for LVEF) in the entire study population and in the subgroups of patients with an earlier infarction, severe defects, and large infarctions (> or = 20% of the left ventricle). A correlation existed between gated SPECT and ERNA volumes (r = 0.882, y = 1.040x - 14.7, P<.0001 for end-diastolic volume; r = 0.954, y = 1.147x - 13.9, P<.0001 for end-systolic volumes with the count-ratio technique), but with wider limits of agreement. The exact segmental score agreement between gated SPECT and echocardiography for regional function was 79.8% (281 of 352, kappa = 0.682). CONCLUSIONS: Automated gated SPECT provides an accurate assessment of ejection fraction and regional function, even in the presence of an earlier myocardial infarction with large perfusion defects and significant left ventricular dysfunction.
Authors: D Berman; G Germano; H Lewin; X Kang; P B Kavanagh; P Tapnio; M Harris; J Friedman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 1998 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: N B Schiller; P M Shah; M Crawford; A DeMaria; R Devereux; H Feigenbaum; H Gutgesell; N Reichek; D Sahn; I Schnittger Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 1989 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: E Tadamura; T Kudoh; M Motooka; M Inubushi; S Shirakawa; N Hattori; T Okada; T Matsuda; T Koshiji; K Nishimura; K Matsuda; J Konishi Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1999-03-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Olivier De Winter; Pieter De Bondt; Christophe Van De Wiele; Guy De Backer; Rudi A Dierckx; Johan De Sutter Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2004 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Aiden Abidov; Piotr J Slomka; Hidetaka Nishina; Sean W Hayes; Xingping Kang; Shunichi Yoda; Ling-De Yang; James Gerlach; Fatma Aboul-Enein; Ishac Cohen; John D Friedman; Paul B Kavanagh; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006-09 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: Kenneth S K Yap; Martin Cherk; Bruce Van Every; Michael Bailey; Michael J Kelly; Victor Kalff Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Tali Sharir; Xingping Kang; Guido Germano; Jeroen J Bax; Leslee J Shaw; Heidi Gransar; Ishac Cohen; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 5.952