Literature DB >> 12677303

Measurement of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by quantitative gated SPET, contrast ventriculography and magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis.

Chisato Kondo1, Kenji Fukushima, Kiyoko Kusakabe.   

Abstract

All previous validation studies of quantitative gated single-photon emission tomography (QGS) have examined relatively few patients, and the accuracy of QGS thus remains uncertain. We performed a meta-analysis of data from 301 participants in ten studies that compared QGS using technetium-99m-labelled tracers with contrast left ventriculography (LVG), and from 112 participants in six studies that compared QGS with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses were used to evaluate pooled data from individuals across the studies. The correlation between QGS and LVG for end-diastolic volume (EDV) (r=0.81, SEE=27 ml), end-systolic volume (ESV) (r=0.83, SEE=18 ml) and ejection fraction (EF) (r=0.79, SEE=8.3%) was good, as was that between QGS and MRI for EDV (r=0.87, SEE=34 ml), ESV (r=0.89, SEE=27 ml) and EF (r=0.88, SEE=7.2%). However, Bland-Altman plots indicated that LVG minus QGS differences for EDV generated a systematic and random error of 32+/-58 ml (mean+/-2SD), and that MRI minus QGS generated an error of 13+/-73 ml. In the subgroup of patients in whom ECG gating was set at eight intervals, QGS significantly underestimated EF by 7.6%+/-17.4% (mean+/-2SD) compared with LVG and by 6.3%+/-14.6% compared with MRI; no such underestimation was observed in the subgroup in whom ECG gating was set at 16 intervals. We conclude that in patients with ECG gating set at eight intervals, QGS systematically underestimates LV volumes and EF compared with both LVG and MRI. Since QGS also shows considerable variations around the systematic deviations, there remains uncertainty over whether an individual value determined with QGS approximates the true LV volumes and EF.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12677303     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-003-1146-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  38 in total

1.  [Collection conditions of ECG-gated myocardial SPECT].

Authors:  Y Takahashi; M Abe; R Matsui
Journal:  Kaku Igaku       Date:  1999-10

2.  [A newly developed maneuver, field change conversion (FCC), improved evaluation of the left ventricular volume more accurately on quantitative gated SPECT (QGS) analysis].

Authors:  Osamu Tajima; Masaki Shibasaki; Toshiko Hoshi; Kamon Imai
Journal:  Kaku Igaku       Date:  2002-05

3.  Reproducibility and accuracy of gated SPECT for determination of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction: experimental validation using MRI.

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

4.  Reproducibility of the angiographic left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with coronary artery disease.

Authors:  P F Cohn; J A Levine; G A Bergeron; R Gorlin
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1974-12       Impact factor: 4.749

5.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Assessment of regional and global left ventricular function by reinjection T1-201 and rest Tc-99m sestamibi ECG-gated SPECT: comparison with three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging.

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

7.  Reproducibility of MRI-derived measurements of right ventricular volumes and myocardial mass.

Authors:  P M Pattynama; H J Lamb; E A Van der Velde; R J Van der Geest; E E Van der Wall; A De Roos
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.546

8.  Gated myocardial perfusion tomography for the assessment of left ventricular function and volumes: comparison with echocardiography.

Authors:  E Cwajg; J Cwajg; Z X He; W S Hwang; F Keng; S F Nagueh; M S Verani
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 10.057

9.  Comparison of Emory and Cedars-Sinai methods for assessment of left ventricular function from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT in patients with a small heart.

Authors:  M Toba; S Kumita; K Cho; S Mizumura; T Kijima; H Nakajo; T Kumazaki
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 2.668

10.  201Tl and 99mTc-MIBI gated SPECT in patients with large perfusion defects and left ventricular dysfunction: comparison with equilibrium radionuclide angiography.

Authors:  A Manrique; M Faraggi; P Véra; D Vilain; R Lebtahi; A Cribier; D Le Guludec
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  19 in total

1.  Individual measurements may not closely follow average tendencies: the paradigm of nuclear cardiology.

Authors:  Efstratios Moralidis; Georgios Arsos; Dimitrios Boundas; Konstantinos Karakatsanis
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-09-20       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Validation of 4D-MSPECT and QGS for quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction from gated 99mTc-MIBI SPET: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

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

3.  Ejection fraction derived by noninvasive modalities versus left ventricular angiographic determination.

Authors:  Tahir Tak
Journal:  Clin Med Res       Date:  2005-05

4.  Gated SPECT: what's the ideal method to measure LVEF?

Authors:  Sum-Che Man; Ernst E van der Wall; Cees A Swenne
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2008-09-02       Impact factor: 2.357

5.  Assessment of poststress left ventricular ejection fraction by gated SPECT: comparison with equilibrium radionuclide angiocardiography.

Authors:  Wanda Acampa; Maria Grazia Caprio; Emanuele Nicolai; Raffaele Liuzzi; Serena De Luca; Enza Capasso; Luca Luongo; Mario Petretta; Alberto Cuocolo
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-12-01       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Limitations in the current screening practice of assessing left ventricular ejection fraction for a primary prophylactic implantable defibrillator in southern Ontario.

Authors:  Christopher Lane; Paul Dorian; Nina Ghosh; Maria Radina; Suzan O'Donnell; Kevin Thorpe; Iqwal Mangat; Victoria Korley; Arnold Pinter
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 5.223

7.  Accuracy of noninvasive ejection fraction measurement in a large community-based clinic.

Authors:  Dana E Habash-Bseiso; Roxann Rokey; Charles J Berger; Andrew W Weier; Po-Huang Chyou
Journal:  Clin Med Res       Date:  2005-05

8.  The adult Göttingen minipig as a model for chronic heart failure after myocardial infarction: focus on cardiovascular imaging and regenerative therapies.

Authors:  Karl H Schuleri; Andrew J Boyle; Marco Centola; Luciano C Amado; Robert Evers; Jeffrey M Zimmet; Kristine S Evers; Katherine M Ostbye; Diana G Scorpio; Joshua M Hare; Albert C Lardo
Journal:  Comp Med       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 0.982

9.  Comparison and co-relation of invasive and noninvasive methods of ejection fraction measurement.

Authors:  Darshan Godkar; Kalyan Bachu; Bijal Dave; Robert Megna; Selva Niranjan; Ashok Khanna
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 1.798

Review 10.  Normal values for nuclear cardiology: Japanese databases for myocardial perfusion, fatty acid and sympathetic imaging and left ventricular function.

Authors:  Kenichi Nakajima
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2010-01-29       Impact factor: 2.668

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.