BACKGROUND AND AIM: Left and right ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF and RVEF) and end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (LVEDV, RVEDV, LVESV and RVESV) can be calculated from tomographic radionuclide ventriculography (TRV). The aim of this study was to validate and compare these parameters obtained using four different TRV software programs (QBS, QUBE, 4D-MSPECT and BP-SPECT). METHODS: LVEF obtained from planar radionuclide ventriculography (PRV) was compared with LVEF obtained from TRV using the four different software programs in 166 patients. Furthermore, ventricular volumes obtained using TRV (QBS, QUBE and 4D-MSPECT) were compared with those obtained using BP-SPECT, the latter being the only method with the validation of ventricular volumes in the literature. RESULTS: The correlation of LVEF between PRV and TRV was good for all methods: 0.81 for QBS, 0.79 for QUBE, 0.71 for 4D-MSPECT and 0.79 for BP-SPECT. The mean differences+/-standard deviation (SD) were 3.16+/-9.88, 10.72+/-10.92, 3.43+/-11.79 and 2.91+/-10.39, respectively. The correlation of RVEF between BP-SPECT and QUBE and QBS was poor: 0.33 and 0.38, respectively. LV volumes calculated using QBS, QUBE and 4D-MSPECT correlated well with those obtained using BP-SPECT (0.98, 0.90 and 0.98, respectively), with mean differences+/-SD of 7.31+/-42.94, -22.09+/-36.07 and -40.55+/-39.36, respectively. RV volumes showed poorer correlation between QBS and BP-SPECT and between QUBE and BP-SPECT (0.82 and 0.57, respectively). CONCLUSION: LVEF calculated using TRV correlates well with that calculated using PRV, but is not interchangeable with the value obtained using PRV. Volume calculations (for left and right ventricle) and RVEF require further validation before they can be used in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Left and right ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF and RVEF) and end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (LVEDV, RVEDV, LVESV and RVESV) can be calculated from tomographic radionuclide ventriculography (TRV). The aim of this study was to validate and compare these parameters obtained using four different TRV software programs (QBS, QUBE, 4D-MSPECT and BP-SPECT). METHODS: LVEF obtained from planar radionuclide ventriculography (PRV) was compared with LVEF obtained from TRV using the four different software programs in 166 patients. Furthermore, ventricular volumes obtained using TRV (QBS, QUBE and 4D-MSPECT) were compared with those obtained using BP-SPECT, the latter being the only method with the validation of ventricular volumes in the literature. RESULTS: The correlation of LVEF between PRV and TRV was good for all methods: 0.81 for QBS, 0.79 for QUBE, 0.71 for 4D-MSPECT and 0.79 for BP-SPECT. The mean differences+/-standard deviation (SD) were 3.16+/-9.88, 10.72+/-10.92, 3.43+/-11.79 and 2.91+/-10.39, respectively. The correlation of RVEF between BP-SPECT and QUBE and QBS was poor: 0.33 and 0.38, respectively. LV volumes calculated using QBS, QUBE and 4D-MSPECT correlated well with those obtained using BP-SPECT (0.98, 0.90 and 0.98, respectively), with mean differences+/-SD of 7.31+/-42.94, -22.09+/-36.07 and -40.55+/-39.36, respectively. RV volumes showed poorer correlation between QBS and BP-SPECT and between QUBE and BP-SPECT (0.82 and 0.57, respectively). CONCLUSION: LVEF calculated using TRV correlates well with that calculated using PRV, but is not interchangeable with the value obtained using PRV. Volume calculations (for left and right ventricle) and RVEF require further validation before they can be used in clinical practice.
Authors: François Harel; Vincent Finnerty; Quam Ngo; Jean Grégoire; Paul Khairy; Bernard Thibault Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-06-27 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