PURPOSE: We compared left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction obtained by gated SPECT with that obtained by equilibrium radionuclide angiocardiography in a large cohort of patients. METHODS: Within 1 week, 514 subjects with suspected or known coronary artery disease underwent same-day stress-rest (99m)Tc-sestamibi gated SPECT and radionuclide angiocardiography. For both studies, data were acquired 30 min after completion of exercise and after 3 h rest. RESULTS: In the overall study population, a good correlation between ejection fraction measured by gated SPECT and by radionuclide angiocardiography was observed at rest (r=0.82, p<0.0001) and after stress (r=0.83, p<0.0001). In Bland-Altman analysis, the mean differences in ejection fraction (radionuclide angiocardiography minus gated SPECT) were -0.6% at rest and 1.7% after stress. In subjects with normal perfusion (n=362), a good correlation between ejection fraction measured by gated SPECT and by radionuclide angiocardiography was observed at rest (r=0.72, p<0.0001) and after stress (r=0.70, p<0.0001) and the mean differences in ejection fraction were -0.9% at rest and 1.4% after stress. Also in patients with abnormal perfusion (n=152), a good correlation between the two techniques was observed both at rest (r=0.89, p<0.0001) and after stress (r=0.90, p<0.0001) and the mean differences in ejection fraction were 0.1% at rest and 2.5% after stress. CONCLUSION: In a large study population, a good agreement was observed in the evaluation of LV ejection fraction between gated SPECT and radionuclide angiocardiography. However, in patients with perfusion abnormalities, a slight underestimation in poststress LV ejection fraction was observed using gated SPECT as compared to equilibrium radionuclide angiocardiography.
PURPOSE: We compared left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction obtained by gated SPECT with that obtained by equilibrium radionuclide angiocardiography in a large cohort of patients. METHODS: Within 1 week, 514 subjects with suspected or known coronary artery disease underwent same-day stress-rest (99m)Tc-sestamibi gated SPECT and radionuclide angiocardiography. For both studies, data were acquired 30 min after completion of exercise and after 3 h rest. RESULTS: In the overall study population, a good correlation between ejection fraction measured by gated SPECT and by radionuclide angiocardiography was observed at rest (r=0.82, p<0.0001) and after stress (r=0.83, p<0.0001). In Bland-Altman analysis, the mean differences in ejection fraction (radionuclide angiocardiography minus gated SPECT) were -0.6% at rest and 1.7% after stress. In subjects with normal perfusion (n=362), a good correlation between ejection fraction measured by gated SPECT and by radionuclide angiocardiography was observed at rest (r=0.72, p<0.0001) and after stress (r=0.70, p<0.0001) and the mean differences in ejection fraction were -0.9% at rest and 1.4% after stress. Also in patients with abnormal perfusion (n=152), a good correlation between the two techniques was observed both at rest (r=0.89, p<0.0001) and after stress (r=0.90, p<0.0001) and the mean differences in ejection fraction were 0.1% at rest and 2.5% after stress. CONCLUSION: In a large study population, a good agreement was observed in the evaluation of LV ejection fraction between gated SPECT and radionuclide angiocardiography. However, in patients with perfusion abnormalities, a slight underestimation in poststress LV ejection fraction was observed using gated SPECT as compared to equilibrium radionuclide angiocardiography.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: L L Johnson; S A Verdesca; W Y Aude; R C Xavier; L T Nott; M W Campanella; G Germano Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: T Sharir; G Germano; X Kang; H C Lewin; R Miranda; I Cohen; R D Agafitei; J D Friedman; D S Berman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: D S Berman; R Hachamovitch; H Kiat; I Cohen; J A Cabico; F P Wang; J D Friedman; G Germano; K Van Train; G A Diamond Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Catherine Gebhard; Barbara E Stähli; Caroline E Gebhard; Michael Fiechter; Tobias A Fuchs; Julia Stehli; Bernd Klaeser; Felix C Tanner; Oliver Gaemperli; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-04-26 Impact factor: 2.357