UNLABELLED: Gated SPECT is a reproducible method for assessing left ventricular volume (LVV) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from 99mTc-sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging studies. LVV and LVEF measurements by this approach correlate well with those obtained from other cardiovascular imaging techniques. Nevertheless, the lack of criteria for abnormal test findings has limited the potential clinical application of this new imaging technique. METHODS: Gated SPECT measurements were evaluated for 214 patients with a low Bayesian likelihood (< 10%) of coronary artery disease (CAD) before performance of 99mTc-sestamibi stress-rest myocardial perfusion SPECT. The patients were grouped into normotensive patients (n = 98), hypertensive patients without left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) (n = 80), and hypertensive patients with LVH on resting electrocardiography (n = 36). Gated SPECT measurements for left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) index, left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) index, and LVEF were obtained according to a published method, using a modified Simpson's rule technique. RESULTS: Similar results were obtained for mean LVV and LVEF measurements between normotensive patients and hypertensive patients without LVH. Hence, these groups were combined (as group 1). By contrast, hypertensive patients with LVH (group 2), had significantly lower LVEF values (P = 0.01) and higher mean LVESV index values than normotensive patients (P = 0.03). Sex differences were marked: women had significantly higher mean resting LVEF values than men (P < 0.0001) and significantly lower mean resting LVEDV index values (P < 0.0001). A significant relationship was seen between LVEDV index and LVEF (r = -0.60; P < 0.0001) and between LVEDV index and heart rate (r = -0.26; P < 0.001). The normal limits were LVEF > or = 41% in men and > or = 49% in women, LVEDV index < or = 76 mL/m2 in men and < or = 57 mL/m2 in women, and LVESV index < or 38 mL/m2 in men and < or =26 mL/m2 in women. Among hypertensive patients, 22% with LVH had an abnormally low LVEF and 19% had an increased LVEDV index according to these test criteria. By contrast, no hypertensive patients without LVH had an abnormally low LVEF, and only 6% had volume abnormalities. CONCLUSION: Using a cohort of low-likelihood patients, we generated sex-specific normal limits for LVV and LVEF for myocardial perfusion gated SPECT. Application of these findings resulted in the detection of occult left ventricular dysfunction in approximately one fifth of hypertensive patients for whom concomitant LVH was found through resting electrocardiography. These normal limits can now be evaluated prospectively for their potential clinical value.
UNLABELLED: Gated SPECT is a reproducible method for assessing left ventricular volume (LVV) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from 99mTc-sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging studies. LVV and LVEF measurements by this approach correlate well with those obtained from other cardiovascular imaging techniques. Nevertheless, the lack of criteria for abnormal test findings has limited the potential clinical application of this new imaging technique. METHODS: Gated SPECT measurements were evaluated for 214 patients with a low Bayesian likelihood (< 10%) of coronary artery disease (CAD) before performance of 99mTc-sestamibi stress-rest myocardial perfusion SPECT. The patients were grouped into normotensive patients (n = 98), hypertensivepatients without left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) (n = 80), and hypertensivepatients with LVH on resting electrocardiography (n = 36). Gated SPECT measurements for left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) index, left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) index, and LVEF were obtained according to a published method, using a modified Simpson's rule technique. RESULTS: Similar results were obtained for mean LVV and LVEF measurements between normotensive patients and hypertensivepatients without LVH. Hence, these groups were combined (as group 1). By contrast, hypertensivepatients with LVH (group 2), had significantly lower LVEF values (P = 0.01) and higher mean LVESV index values than normotensive patients (P = 0.03). Sex differences were marked: women had significantly higher mean resting LVEF values than men (P < 0.0001) and significantly lower mean resting LVEDV index values (P < 0.0001). A significant relationship was seen between LVEDV index and LVEF (r = -0.60; P < 0.0001) and between LVEDV index and heart rate (r = -0.26; P < 0.001). The normal limits were LVEF > or = 41% in men and > or = 49% in women, LVEDV index < or = 76 mL/m2 in men and < or = 57 mL/m2 in women, and LVESV index < or 38 mL/m2 in men and < or =26 mL/m2 in women. Among hypertensivepatients, 22% with LVH had an abnormally low LVEF and 19% had an increased LVEDV index according to these test criteria. By contrast, no hypertensivepatients without LVH had an abnormally low LVEF, and only 6% had volume abnormalities. CONCLUSION: Using a cohort of low-likelihood patients, we generated sex-specific normal limits for LVV and LVEF for myocardial perfusion gated SPECT. Application of these findings resulted in the detection of occult left ventricular dysfunction in approximately one fifth of hypertensivepatients for whom concomitant LVH was found through resting electrocardiography. These normal limits can now be evaluated prospectively for their potential clinical value.
Authors: Kenneth Nichols; Cesar A Santana; Russell Folks; Elizabeth Krawczynska; C David Cooke; Tracy L Faber; Steven R Bergmann; Ernest V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2002 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Pieter De Bondt; Kenneth J Nichols; Olivier De Winter; Johan De Sutter; Marc Vanderheyden; Olakunle O Akinboboye; Rudi Andre Dierckx Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: B Hesse; T B Lindhardt; W Acampa; C Anagnostopoulos; J Ballinger; J J Bax; L Edenbrandt; A Flotats; G Germano; T Gmeiner Stopar; P Franken; A Kelion; A Kjaer; D Le Guludec; M Ljungberg; A F Maenhout; C Marcassa; J Marving; F McKiddie; W M Schaefer; L Stegger; R Underwood Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 9.236
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
Authors: Catherine Gebhard; Barbara E Stähli; Caroline E Gebhard; Michael Fiechter; Tobias A Fuchs; Julia Stehli; Bernd Klaeser; Felix C Tanner; Oliver Gaemperli; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-04-26 Impact factor: 2.357