BACKGROUND: Quantitative gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT [QGS]) software is widely used for the assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Potentially confounding variables that may affect the accuracy of quantitative analysis of LVEF remain undefined. This study evaluated the accuracy of QGS as a means of determining LVEF in a wide range of LVEF values; evaluated the effect of extracardiac activity, count statistics, heart size, and perfusion defects on the accuracy of QGS LVEF; and compared QGS LVEF obtained at rest with that obtained after stress. METHODS AND RESULTS: QGS-derived LVEF was compared with rest first-pass radionuclide angiography (FPRNA) LVEF in 400 electrocardiographic-gated SPECT studies. The overall correlation between QGS and FPRNA LVEF was only fair (r = 0.66, SEE = 11.85%). In 35 of the patient studies (9%) with high extracardiac activity, the automated software failed, and no correlation was obtained. In the remaining 365 patient studies (91%), left ventricular contours were successfully identified. In these studies, correlation was better (r = 0.74, SEE = 9.77%). Agreement was better for images with high counts (r = 0.81, SEE = 8.66%) than for images with low counts (r = 0.61, SEE = 11.17%). Patient studies with abnormal LVEF had better correlation (r = 0.77, SEE = 6.4%) than studies with normal LVEF (r = 0.46, SEE = 10.2%). Agreement between QGS LVEF and FPRNA LVEF was better in hearts with large end diastolic volumes (>104 mL) than in hearts with small volumes. Overall, mean QGS LVEF was lower than mean FPRNA LVEF (54%+/-14% vs. 58%+/-14%, P<.0001). There was no difference between mean rest and stress QGS LVEF in the same patients, even in patients with stress-induced ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: QGS is a valuable method for assessing resting LVEF. However, QGS LVEF is often lower than FPRNA LVEF. Accuracy is affected by high extracardiac activity, low count density, and small size of the left ventricle.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT [QGS]) software is widely used for the assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Potentially confounding variables that may affect the accuracy of quantitative analysis of LVEF remain undefined. This study evaluated the accuracy of QGS as a means of determining LVEF in a wide range of LVEF values; evaluated the effect of extracardiac activity, count statistics, heart size, and perfusion defects on the accuracy of QGS LVEF; and compared QGS LVEF obtained at rest with that obtained after stress. METHODS AND RESULTS: QGS-derived LVEF was compared with rest first-pass radionuclide angiography (FPRNA) LVEF in 400 electrocardiographic-gated SPECT studies. The overall correlation between QGS and FPRNA LVEF was only fair (r = 0.66, SEE = 11.85%). In 35 of the patient studies (9%) with high extracardiac activity, the automated software failed, and no correlation was obtained. In the remaining 365 patient studies (91%), left ventricular contours were successfully identified. In these studies, correlation was better (r = 0.74, SEE = 9.77%). Agreement was better for images with high counts (r = 0.81, SEE = 8.66%) than for images with low counts (r = 0.61, SEE = 11.17%). Patient studies with abnormal LVEF had better correlation (r = 0.77, SEE = 6.4%) than studies with normal LVEF (r = 0.46, SEE = 10.2%). Agreement between QGS LVEF and FPRNA LVEF was better in hearts with large end diastolic volumes (>104 mL) than in hearts with small volumes. Overall, mean QGS LVEF was lower than mean FPRNA LVEF (54%+/-14% vs. 58%+/-14%, P<.0001). There was no difference between mean rest and stress QGS LVEF in the same patients, even in patients with stress-induced ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: QGS is a valuable method for assessing resting LVEF. However, QGS LVEF is often lower than FPRNA LVEF. Accuracy is affected by high extracardiac activity, low count density, and small size of the left ventricle.
Authors: P Brigger; S L Bacharach; G Srinivasan; K A Nour; J A Carson; V Dilsizian; A Aldroubi; M Unser Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 1999 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Gautam Ramakrishna; Todd D Miller; David O Hodge; Michael K O'Connor; Raymond J Gibbons 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