UNLABELLED: The goal of this study was to validate the accuracy of the Emory Cardiac Tool Box (ECTB) in assessing left ventricular end-diastolic or end-systolic volume (EDV, ESV) and ejection fraction (LVEF) from gated (99m)Tc-methoxyisobutylisonitrile ((99m)Tc-MIBI) SPECT using cardiac MRI (cMRI) as a reference. Furthermore, software-specific characteristics of ECTB were analyzed in comparison with 4D-MSPECT and Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) results (all relative to cMRI). METHODS: Seventy patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease were examined using gated (99m)Tc-MIBI SPECT (8 gates/cardiac cycle) 60 min after tracer injection at rest. EDV, ESV, and LVEF were calculated from gated (99m)Tc-MIBI SPECT using ECTB, 4D-MSPECT, and QGS. Directly before or after gated SPECT, cMRI (20 gates/cardiac cycle) was performed as a reference. EDV, ESV, and LVEF were calculated using Simpson's rule. RESULTS: Correlation between results of gated (99m)Tc-MIBI SPECT and cMRI was high for EDV (R = 0.90 [ECTB], R = 0.88 [4D-MSPECT], R = 0.92 [QGS]), ESV (R = 0.94 [ECTB], R = 0.96 [4D-MSPECT], R = 0.96 [QGS]), and LVEF (R = 0.85 [ECTB], R = 0.87 [4D-MSPECT], R = 0.89 [QGS]). EDV (ECTB) did not differ significantly from cMRI, whereas 4D-MSPECT and QGS underestimated EDV significantly compared with cMRI (mean +/- SD: 131 +/- 43 mL [ECTB], 127 +/- 42 mL [4D-MSPECT], 120 +/- 38 mL [QGS], 137 +/- 36 mL [cMRI]). For ESV, only ECTB yielded values that were significantly lower than cMRI. For LVEF, ECTB and 4D-MSPECT values did not differ significantly from cMRI, whereas QGS values were significantly lower than cMRI (mean +/- SD: 62.7% +/- 13.7% [ECTB], 59.0% +/- 12.7% [4DM-SPECT], 53.2% +/- 11.5% [QGS], 60.6% +/- 13.9% [cMRI]). CONCLUSION: EDV, ESV, and LVEF as determined by ECTB, 4D-MSPECT, and QGS from gated (99m)Tc-MIBI SPECT agree over a wide range of clinically relevant values with cMRI. Nevertheless, any algorithm-inherent over- or underestimation of volumes and LVEF should be accounted for and an interchangeable use of different software packages should be avoided.
UNLABELLED: The goal of this study was to validate the accuracy of the Emory Cardiac Tool Box (ECTB) in assessing left ventricular end-diastolic or end-systolic volume (EDV, ESV) and ejection fraction (LVEF) from gated (99m)Tc-methoxyisobutylisonitrile ((99m)Tc-MIBI) SPECT using cardiac MRI (cMRI) as a reference. Furthermore, software-specific characteristics of ECTB were analyzed in comparison with 4D-MSPECT and Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) results (all relative to cMRI). METHODS: Seventy patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease were examined using gated (99m)Tc-MIBI SPECT (8 gates/cardiac cycle) 60 min after tracer injection at rest. EDV, ESV, and LVEF were calculated from gated (99m)Tc-MIBI SPECT using ECTB, 4D-MSPECT, and QGS. Directly before or after gated SPECT, cMRI (20 gates/cardiac cycle) was performed as a reference. EDV, ESV, and LVEF were calculated using Simpson's rule. RESULTS: Correlation between results of gated (99m)Tc-MIBI SPECT and cMRI was high for EDV (R = 0.90 [ECTB], R = 0.88 [4D-MSPECT], R = 0.92 [QGS]), ESV (R = 0.94 [ECTB], R = 0.96 [4D-MSPECT], R = 0.96 [QGS]), and LVEF (R = 0.85 [ECTB], R = 0.87 [4D-MSPECT], R = 0.89 [QGS]). EDV (ECTB) did not differ significantly from cMRI, whereas 4D-MSPECT and QGS underestimated EDV significantly compared with cMRI (mean +/- SD: 131 +/- 43 mL [ECTB], 127 +/- 42 mL [4D-MSPECT], 120 +/- 38 mL [QGS], 137 +/- 36 mL [cMRI]). For ESV, only ECTB yielded values that were significantly lower than cMRI. For LVEF, ECTB and 4D-MSPECT values did not differ significantly from cMRI, whereas QGS values were significantly lower than cMRI (mean +/- SD: 62.7% +/- 13.7% [ECTB], 59.0% +/- 12.7% [4DM-SPECT], 53.2% +/- 11.5% [QGS], 60.6% +/- 13.9% [cMRI]). CONCLUSION: EDV, ESV, and LVEF as determined by ECTB, 4D-MSPECT, and QGS from gated (99m)Tc-MIBI SPECT agree over a wide range of clinically relevant values with cMRI. Nevertheless, any algorithm-inherent over- or underestimation of volumes and LVEF should be accounted for and an interchangeable use of different software packages should be avoided.
Authors: Min Young Lee; Sang Hun Lee; Jae Hong Park; Jung Sun Heo; Yu Jin Lee; Han Na Suh; Jung Jun Min; Young Soon Seo; Ho Jae Han Journal: J Vet Sci Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 1.672
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: Piotr Lipiec; Maria Krzemińska-Pakuła; Michał Plewka; Jacek Kuśmierek; Anna Płachcińska; Remigiusz Szumiński; Tadeusz Robak; Anna Korycka; Jarosław D Kasprzak Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-11-29 Impact factor: 9.236