BACKGROUND: There is limited data on the concordance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) obtained via solid state dedicated cardiac cameras (SSD) and gated cardiac blood pool scans (GCBPS). This study aimed to examine the agreement of LVEF measured during GCBPS and Tl-201 myocardial perfusion scans (MPS) using SSD. METHODS: Seventy six patients were enrolled. Following stress MPS with 0.8 Mbq/kg (0.022 mCi/kg) Tl-201 and 8-frame gated rest studies after additional 15 Mbq (0.41 mCi) Tl-201, LVEFs were obtained using ECToolbox (ECT) and quantitative gated SPECT (QGS) software. Same day 16-frame planar GCBPS were performed. Interobserver variability was compared and LVEF results were compared using paired t tests, Pearson's correlation and the differences of the LVEF were plotted against GCBPS values. RESULTS: For GCBPS, ECT and QGS, the mean (±SD) LVEF was 52% ± 14%, 61% ± 18% and 48% ± 19%, respectively. When compared to GCBPS, ECT and QGS, LVEFs had similar R values of 0.85 and 0.83, respectively, and mean differences [95% limits of agreement (LA)] of -8.6% (-27.4% to +10.2%, P < .001) and 4.2% (-17.2% to +25.6%, P = .001), respectively. CONCLUSION: While the LVEF obtained by ECT or QGS demonstrates a statistically significant correlation with GCBPS, they are significantly different and the wide 95% LA suggest that Tl-201 MPS LVEFs derived from either software package are not interchangeable with GCBPS results.
BACKGROUND: There is limited data on the concordance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) obtained via solid state dedicated cardiac cameras (SSD) and gated cardiac blood pool scans (GCBPS). This study aimed to examine the agreement of LVEF measured during GCBPS and Tl-201 myocardial perfusion scans (MPS) using SSD. METHODS: Seventy six patients were enrolled. Following stress MPS with 0.8 Mbq/kg (0.022 mCi/kg) Tl-201 and 8-frame gated rest studies after additional 15 Mbq (0.41 mCi) Tl-201, LVEFs were obtained using ECToolbox (ECT) and quantitative gated SPECT (QGS) software. Same day 16-frame planar GCBPS were performed. Interobserver variability was compared and LVEF results were compared using paired t tests, Pearson's correlation and the differences of the LVEF were plotted against GCBPS values. RESULTS: For GCBPS, ECT and QGS, the mean (±SD) LVEF was 52% ± 14%, 61% ± 18% and 48% ± 19%, respectively. When compared to GCBPS, ECT and QGS, LVEFs had similar R values of 0.85 and 0.83, respectively, and mean differences [95% limits of agreement (LA)] of -8.6% (-27.4% to +10.2%, P < .001) and 4.2% (-17.2% to +25.6%, P = .001), respectively. CONCLUSION: While the LVEF obtained by ECT or QGS demonstrates a statistically significant correlation with GCBPS, they are significantly different and the wide 95% LA suggest that Tl-201 MPS LVEFs derived from either software package are not interchangeable with GCBPS results.
Authors: Kenneth Nichols; Cesar A Santana; Russell Folks; Elizabeth Krawczynska; C David Cooke; Tracy L Faber; Steven R Bergmann; Ernest V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2002 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Thomas A Holly; Brian G Abbott; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Dennis A Calnon; Mylan C Cohen; Frank P DiFilippo; Edward P Ficaro; Michael R Freeman; Robert C Hendel; Diwakar Jain; Scott M Leonard; Kenneth J Nichols; Donna M Polk; Prem Soman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Martin H Cherk; Jason Ky; Kenneth S K Yap; Patrina Campbell; Catherine McGrath; Michael Bailey; Victor Kalff Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: B L Zaret; F J Wackers; M L Terrin; S A Forman; D O Williams; G L Knatterud; E Braunwald Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1995-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Fabio P Esteves; Paolo Raggi; Russell D Folks; Zohar Keidar; J Wells Askew; Shmuel Rispler; Michael K O'Connor; Liudmilla Verdes; Ernest V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 5.952