UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to compare results of left ventricular (LV) function obtained by quantitative gated single-photon emission tomography (QGS) and multidetector-row spiral computed tomography (MDCT) with reference parameters using an electrocardiogram-gated cardiac physical phantom. The phantom study was performed using a combined SPECT/CT system. Flexible membranes formed the inner and outer walls of the simulated LV. The stroke volume was adjusted (45 mL or 58 mL) and the fixed 42-mL end-systolic volume (ESV) produced two different volume combinations. The LV function parameters were estimated by means of MDCT and QGS. Differences in true and measured volumes were compared among CT with a reconstructed image thickness of 2.5 mm and 5.0 mm and QGS volumetric values. Each scan was repeated three-times. The estimation of LV volumes using both QGS and MDCT analyses were reproducible very well. QGS overestimated ejection fraction (EF) by approximately 20%; MDCT volumetry overestimated EF by approximately 5% in each volume setting. The differences in true and measured values for EF and ESV obtained with QGS were significantly greater than obtained with MDCT. CONCLUSION: MDCT provides a reliable estimation of functional LV parameters, whereas QGS tends to significantly overestimate the EF in small hearts.
UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to compare results of left ventricular (LV) function obtained by quantitative gated single-photon emission tomography (QGS) and multidetector-row spiral computed tomography (MDCT) with reference parameters using an electrocardiogram-gated cardiac physical phantom. The phantom study was performed using a combined SPECT/CT system. Flexible membranes formed the inner and outer walls of the simulated LV. The stroke volume was adjusted (45 mL or 58 mL) and the fixed 42-mL end-systolic volume (ESV) produced two different volume combinations. The LV function parameters were estimated by means of MDCT and QGS. Differences in true and measured volumes were compared among CT with a reconstructed image thickness of 2.5 mm and 5.0 mm and QGS volumetric values. Each scan was repeated three-times. The estimation of LV volumes using both QGS and MDCT analyses were reproducible very well. QGS overestimated ejection fraction (EF) by approximately 20%; MDCT volumetry overestimated EF by approximately 5% in each volume setting. The differences in true and measured values for EF and ESV obtained with QGS were significantly greater than obtained with MDCT. CONCLUSION: MDCT provides a reliable estimation of functional LV parameters, whereas QGS tends to significantly overestimate the EF in small hearts.
Authors: T Mochizuki; K Murase; H Higashino; Y Koyama; M Doi; M Miyagawa; S Nakata; K Shimizu; J Ikezoe Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: N B Schiller; P M Shah; M Crawford; A DeMaria; R Devereux; H Feigenbaum; H Gutgesell; N Reichek; D Sahn; I Schnittger Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 1989 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.251