UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to compare left ventricular (LV) volumes and regional wall motion determined by PET with those determined by the reference technique, cardiovascular MRI. METHODS: LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), LV end-systolic volume (LVESV), and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) were measured and regional wall motion was scored in 38 patients with chronic coronary artery disease by both gated (18)F-FDG PET and MRI. A 9-segment model was used for PET and MRI to assess regional wall motion. RESULTS: Good correlations were observed between MRI and gated PET for all parameters (r values ranging from 0.91 to 0.96). With PET, there was a significant but small underestimation of LVEDV and LVEF. Mean +/- SD LVEDV, LVESV, and LVEF for MRI were 131 +/- 57 mL, 91 +/- 12 mL, and 33% +/- 12%, respectively, and those for gated PET were 117 +/- 56 mL, 85 +/- 51 mL, and 30% +/- 11%, respectively. For regional wall motion, an agreement of 85% was found, with a kappa-statistic of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.89; SE, 0.049). CONCLUSION: LV volumes, LVEF, and regional wall motion can be assessed with gated (18)F-FDG PET and correlate well with these parameters assessed by MRI.
UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to compare left ventricular (LV) volumes and regional wall motion determined by PET with those determined by the reference technique, cardiovascular MRI. METHODS: LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), LV end-systolic volume (LVESV), and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) were measured and regional wall motion was scored in 38 patients with chronic coronary artery disease by both gated (18)F-FDG PET and MRI. A 9-segment model was used for PET and MRI to assess regional wall motion. RESULTS: Good correlations were observed between MRI and gated PET for all parameters (r values ranging from 0.91 to 0.96). With PET, there was a significant but small underestimation of LVEDV and LVEF. Mean +/- SD LVEDV, LVESV, and LVEF for MRI were 131 +/- 57 mL, 91 +/- 12 mL, and 33% +/- 12%, respectively, and those for gated PET were 117 +/- 56 mL, 85 +/- 51 mL, and 30% +/- 11%, respectively. For regional wall motion, an agreement of 85% was found, with a kappa-statistic of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.89; SE, 0.049). CONCLUSION: LV volumes, LVEF, and regional wall motion can be assessed with gated (18)F-FDG PET and correlate well with these parameters assessed by MRI.
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
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: A Bailly; J Lipiecki; P Chabrot; A Alfidja; J M Garcier; S Ughetto; J Ponsonnaille; L Boyer Journal: Surg Radiol Anat Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 1.246
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: Riikka Lautamäki; Richard T George; Kakuya Kitagawa; Takahiro Higuchi; Jennifer Merrill; Corina Voicu; Anthony DiPaula; Stephan G Nekolla; João A C Lima; Albert C Lardo; Frank M Bengel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-11-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: R H J A Slart; R A Tio; P A van der Vleuten; T P Willems; D D Lubbers; R A Dierckx; D J van Veldhuisen Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 5.952