UNLABELLED: Various automatic algorithms are now being developed to calculate left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) ejection fraction from tomographic radionuclide ventriculography. We tested the performance of 4 of these algorithms in estimating LV and RV volume and ejection fraction using a dynamic 4-chamber cardiac phantom. METHODS: We developed a realistic physical, dynamic 4-chamber cardiac phantom and acquired 25 tomographic radionuclide ventriculography images within a wide range of end-diastolic volumes, end-systolic volumes, and stroke volumes. We assessed the ability of 4 algorithms (QBS, QUBE, 4D-MSPECT, and BP-SPECT) to calculate LV and RV volume and ejection fraction. RESULTS: For the left ventricle, the correlations between reference and estimated volumes (0.93, 0.93, 0.96, and 0.93 for QBS, QUBE, 4D-MSPECT, and BP-SPECT, respectively; all with P < 0.001) and ejection fractions (0.90, 0.93, 0.88, and 0.92, respectively; all with P < 0.001) were good, although all algorithms underestimated the volumes (mean difference [+/-2 SDs] from Bland-Altman analysis: -39.83 +/- 43.12 mL, -33.39 +/- 38.12 mL, -33.29 +/- 40.70 mL, and -16.61 +/- 39.64 mL, respectively). The underestimation by QBS, QUBE, and 4D-MSPECT was greater for higher volumes. QBS, QUBE, and BP-SPECT could also be tested for the right ventricle. Correlations were good for the volumes (0.93, 0.95, and 0.97 for QBS, QUBE, and BP-SPECT, respectively; all with P < 0.001). In terms of absolute volume estimation, the mean differences (+/-2 SDs) from Bland-Altman analysis were -41.28 +/- 43.66 mL, 11.13 +/- 49.26 mL, and -13.11 +/- 28.20 mL, respectively. Calculation of RV ejection fraction correlated well with true values (0.84, 0.92, and 0.94, respectively; all with P < 0.001), although an overestimation was seen for higher ejection fractions. CONCLUSION: Calculation of LV and RV ejection fraction based on tomographic radionuclide ventriculography was accurate for all tested algorithms. All algorithms underestimated LV volume; estimation of RV volume seemed more difficult, with different results for each algorithm. The more irregular shape and inclusion of a relatively hypokinetic RV outflow tract in the right ventricle seemed to cause the greater difficulty with delineation of the right ventricle, compared with the left ventricle.
UNLABELLED: Various automatic algorithms are now being developed to calculate left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) ejection fraction from tomographic radionuclide ventriculography. We tested the performance of 4 of these algorithms in estimating LV and RV volume and ejection fraction using a dynamic 4-chamber cardiac phantom. METHODS: We developed a realistic physical, dynamic 4-chamber cardiac phantom and acquired 25 tomographic radionuclide ventriculography images within a wide range of end-diastolic volumes, end-systolic volumes, and stroke volumes. We assessed the ability of 4 algorithms (QBS, QUBE, 4D-MSPECT, and BP-SPECT) to calculate LV and RV volume and ejection fraction. RESULTS: For the left ventricle, the correlations between reference and estimated volumes (0.93, 0.93, 0.96, and 0.93 for QBS, QUBE, 4D-MSPECT, and BP-SPECT, respectively; all with P < 0.001) and ejection fractions (0.90, 0.93, 0.88, and 0.92, respectively; all with P < 0.001) were good, although all algorithms underestimated the volumes (mean difference [+/-2 SDs] from Bland-Altman analysis: -39.83 +/- 43.12 mL, -33.39 +/- 38.12 mL, -33.29 +/- 40.70 mL, and -16.61 +/- 39.64 mL, respectively). The underestimation by QBS, QUBE, and 4D-MSPECT was greater for higher volumes. QBS, QUBE, and BP-SPECT could also be tested for the right ventricle. Correlations were good for the volumes (0.93, 0.95, and 0.97 for QBS, QUBE, and BP-SPECT, respectively; all with P < 0.001). In terms of absolute volume estimation, the mean differences (+/-2 SDs) from Bland-Altman analysis were -41.28 +/- 43.66 mL, 11.13 +/- 49.26 mL, and -13.11 +/- 28.20 mL, respectively. Calculation of RV ejection fraction correlated well with true values (0.84, 0.92, and 0.94, respectively; all with P < 0.001), although an overestimation was seen for higher ejection fractions. CONCLUSION: Calculation of LV and RV ejection fraction based on tomographic radionuclide ventriculography was accurate for all tested algorithms. All algorithms underestimated LV volume; estimation of RV volume seemed more difficult, with different results for each algorithm. The more irregular shape and inclusion of a relatively hypokinetic RV outflow tract in the right ventricle seemed to cause the greater difficulty with delineation of the right ventricle, compared with the left ventricle.
Authors: Tommi Kokki; Hannu T Sipilä; Mika Teräs; Tommi Noponen; Nicolas Durand-Schaefer; Riku Klén; Juhani Knuuti Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: A Krakovich; U Zaretsky; E Gelbart; I Moalem; A Naimushin; E Rozen; M Scheinowitz; R Goldkorn Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: A Krakovich; U Zaretsky; I Moalem; A Naimushin; E Rozen; M Scheinowitz; R Goldkorn Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 5.952