UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to compare cardiac volume and function assessment using PET with the reference technique of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). METHODS: Left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV), and ejection fractions (EF) were measured in 9 patients using both CMR and PET with inhaled C(15)O. RESULTS: Correlation between the techniques was generally reasonable (r values ranged from 0.63 to 0.99). Best agreement was seen for ESV (LV and RV). With PET, there was a tendency to underestimate LV EF and EDV, and RV EDV and SV. Agreement was worst for LV SV. Percentage difference between CMR and PET measurements ranged from -2% to 15%; Bland-Altman limits of agreement ranged from 24% to 75%. CONCLUSION: Although small systematic differences exist, the agreement between PET and CMR suggests useful information regarding function, and volumes may be obtained from a standard PET protocol.
UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to compare cardiac volume and function assessment using PET with the reference technique of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). METHODS: Left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV), and ejection fractions (EF) were measured in 9 patients using both CMR and PET with inhaled C(15)O. RESULTS: Correlation between the techniques was generally reasonable (r values ranged from 0.63 to 0.99). Best agreement was seen for ESV (LV and RV). With PET, there was a tendency to underestimate LV EF and EDV, and RV EDV and SV. Agreement was worst for LV SV. Percentage difference between CMR and PET measurements ranged from -2% to 15%; Bland-Altman limits of agreement ranged from 24% to 75%. CONCLUSION: Although small systematic differences exist, the agreement between PET and CMR suggests useful information regarding function, and volumes may be obtained from a standard PET protocol.
Authors: Riemer H J A Slart; Jeroen J Bax; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Ernst E van der Wall; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Pieter L Jager Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2005-12-13 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Hadassa A Hofman; Paul Knaapen; Ronald Boellaard; Olga Bondarenko; Marco J W Götte; Willem G van Dockum; Cees A Visser; Albert C van Rossum; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Frans C Visser Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Nils Henrik Hansson; Lars Tolbod; Hendrik Johannes Harms; Henrik Wiggers; Won Yong Kim; Esben Hansen; Tomas Zaremba; Jørgen Frøkiær; Steen Jakobsen; Jens Sørensen Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-04-19 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: Andrew Van Tosh; Nathaniel Reichek; C David Cooke; Christopher J Palestro; Kenneth J Nichols Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Cibele M Prado; Eugene J Fine; Wade Koba; Dazhi Zhao; Marcos A Rossi; Herbert B Tanowitz; Linda A Jelicks Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 2.345