BACKGROUND: Two methods of computing left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction (EF) from 8-frame gated perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) were compared with each other and with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-five subjects underwent 8-frame gated dual-isotope SPECT imaging and 12- to 16-frame gated MR imaging. Endocardial boundaries on short-axis MR images were hand traced by experts blinded to any SPECT results. Volumes and EF were computed with the use of Simpson's rule. SPECT images were analyzed for the same functional variables with the use of 2 automatic programs, Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) and the Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb). The mean difference between MR and SPECT EF was 0.008 for ECTb and 0.08 for QGS. QGS showed a slight trend toward higher correlation for EF (r = 0.72, SE of the estimate = 0.08) than ECTb (r = 0.70, SE of the estimate = 0.09). For both SPECT methods, left ventricular volumes were similarly correlated with MR, although SPECT volumes were higher than MR values by approximately 30%. CONCLUSIONS: QGS and ECTb values of cardiac function computed from 8-frame gated perfusion SPECT correlate very well with each other and correlate well with MR. Averaged over all subjects, ECTb measurements of EF are not significantly different from MR values but QGS significantly underestimates the MR values.
BACKGROUND: Two methods of computing left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction (EF) from 8-frame gated perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) were compared with each other and with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-five subjects underwent 8-frame gated dual-isotope SPECT imaging and 12- to 16-frame gated MR imaging. Endocardial boundaries on short-axis MR images were hand traced by experts blinded to any SPECT results. Volumes and EF were computed with the use of Simpson's rule. SPECT images were analyzed for the same functional variables with the use of 2 automatic programs, Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) and the Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb). The mean difference between MR and SPECT EF was 0.008 for ECTb and 0.08 for QGS. QGS showed a slight trend toward higher correlation for EF (r = 0.72, SE of the estimate = 0.08) than ECTb (r = 0.70, SE of the estimate = 0.09). For both SPECT methods, left ventricular volumes were similarly correlated with MR, although SPECT volumes were higher than MR values by approximately 30%. CONCLUSIONS: QGS and ECTb values of cardiac function computed from 8-frame gated perfusion SPECT correlate very well with each other and correlate well with MR. Averaged over all subjects, ECTb measurements of EF are not significantly different from MR values but QGS significantly underestimates the MR values.
Authors: T L Faber; C D Cooke; R D Folks; J P Vansant; K J Nichols; E G DePuey; R I Pettigrew; E V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 10.057
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: L H Baur; J J Schipperheyn; E A van der Velde; E E van der Wall; J H Reiber; R J van der Geest; P R van Dijkman; J G Gerritsen; B L van Eck-Smit; P J Voogd; A V Bruschke Journal: Int J Card Imaging Date: 1996-12
Authors: E Vallejo; D P Dione; W L Bruni; R T Constable; P P Borek; J P Soares; J G Carr; S G Condos; F J Wackers; A J Sinusas Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 10.057
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: John W Hoppin; Matthew A Kupinski; George A Kastis; Eric Clarkson; Harrison H Barrett Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Claudia S A Lipke; Harald P Kühl; Bernd Nowak; Hans-Juergen Kaiser; Patrick Reinartz; Karl-Christian Koch; Udalrich Buell; Wolfgang M Schaefer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-01-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Tomas Skala; Martin Hutyra; Jan Vaclavik; Milan Kaminek; David Horak; Josef Novotny; Jana Zapletalova; Jan Lukl; Dan Marek; Milos Taborsky Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-08-20 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: John W Hoppin; Matthew A Kupinski; Donald W Wilson; Todd Peterson; Benjamin Gershman; George Kastis; Eric Clarkson; Lars Furenlid; Harrison H Barrett Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2003-02-15
Authors: Ernest V Garcia; Tracy L Faber; C David Cooke; Russell D Folks; Ji Chen; Cesar Santana Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 5.952