INTRODUCTION: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the single most important predictor of prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Equilibrium radionuclide ventriculography (ERNV) is considered the most reliable technique for assessing LVEF. Most of these patients undergo two dimensional (2D) echocardiography and myocardial viability study using gated myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) or gated F-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) PET. However, the accuracy of LVEF assessed by these methods is not clear. This study has been designed to assess the correlation and agreement between the LVEF measured by 2D echocardiography, gated blood pool single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), Tc tetrofosmin gated SPECT, and F-FDG gated PET with ERNV in CAD patients with severe LV dysfunction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with CAD and severe LV dysfunction [ejection fraction (EF) <35 assessed by 2D echocardiography] were prospectively included in the study. These patients underwent ERNV along with gated blood pool SPECT, Tc tetrofosmin gated SPECT, and F-FDG gated PET as per the standard protocol for myocardial viability assessment and LVEF calculation. Spearman's coefficient of correlation (r) was calculated for the different sets of values with significance level kept at a P-value less than 0.05. Bland-Altman plots were inspected to visually assess the between-agreement measurements from different methods. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were prospectively included. LVEF calculated by various radionuclide methods showed good correlation with ERNV as follows: gated blood pool SPECT, r=0.92; MPI gated SPECT, r=0.85; and F-FDG gated PET, r=0.76. However, the correlation between 2D echocardiography and ERNV was poor (r=0.520). The Bland-Altman plot for LVEF measured by all radionuclide methods showed good agreement with ERNV. However, agreement between 2D echocardiography and ERNV is poor, as most of the values in this plot gave a negative difference for low EF and a positive difference for high EF. The mean difference between various techniques [2D echocardiography (a), gated blood pool SPECT (b), MPI gated SPECT (c), F-FDG gated PET (d)] and ERNV (e) was as follows: (a)-(e), 3.3; (b)-(e), 5; (c)-(e), 1.1; and (d)-(e), 2.9. The best possible correlation and agreement was found between MPI gated SPECT and ERNV. CONCLUSION: This study showed good correlation and agreement between MPI gated SPECT and F-FDG gated PET with ERNV for LVEF calculation in CAD patients with severe LV dysfunction. Thus, subjecting patients who undergo viability assessment by MPI gated SPECT or F-FDG gated PET to a separate procedure like ERNV for LVEF assessment may not be warranted. As the gated blood pool SPECT also showed good correlation and agreement with ERNV for LVEF assessment in CAD patients with severe LV dysfunction, with better characteristics than ERNV, it can be routinely used whenever accurate LVEF assessment is needed.
INTRODUCTION: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the single most important predictor of prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Equilibrium radionuclide ventriculography (ERNV) is considered the most reliable technique for assessing LVEF. Most of these patients undergo two dimensional (2D) echocardiography and myocardial viability study using gated myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) or gated F-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) PET. However, the accuracy of LVEF assessed by these methods is not clear. This study has been designed to assess the correlation and agreement between the LVEF measured by 2D echocardiography, gated blood pool single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), Tc tetrofosmin gated SPECT, and F-FDG gated PET with ERNV in CAD patients with severe LV dysfunction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with CAD and severe LV dysfunction [ejection fraction (EF) <35 assessed by 2D echocardiography] were prospectively included in the study. These patients underwent ERNV along with gated blood pool SPECT, Tc tetrofosmin gated SPECT, and F-FDG gated PET as per the standard protocol for myocardial viability assessment and LVEF calculation. Spearman's coefficient of correlation (r) was calculated for the different sets of values with significance level kept at a P-value less than 0.05. Bland-Altman plots were inspected to visually assess the between-agreement measurements from different methods. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were prospectively included. LVEF calculated by various radionuclide methods showed good correlation with ERNV as follows: gated blood pool SPECT, r=0.92; MPI gated SPECT, r=0.85; and F-FDG gated PET, r=0.76. However, the correlation between 2D echocardiography and ERNV was poor (r=0.520). The Bland-Altman plot for LVEF measured by all radionuclide methods showed good agreement with ERNV. However, agreement between 2D echocardiography and ERNV is poor, as most of the values in this plot gave a negative difference for low EF and a positive difference for high EF. The mean difference between various techniques [2D echocardiography (a), gated blood pool SPECT (b), MPI gated SPECT (c), F-FDG gated PET (d)] and ERNV (e) was as follows: (a)-(e), 3.3; (b)-(e), 5; (c)-(e), 1.1; and (d)-(e), 2.9. The best possible correlation and agreement was found between MPI gated SPECT and ERNV. CONCLUSION: This study showed good correlation and agreement between MPI gated SPECT and F-FDG gated PET with ERNV for LVEF calculation in CAD patients with severe LV dysfunction. Thus, subjecting patients who undergo viability assessment by MPI gated SPECT or F-FDG gated PET to a separate procedure like ERNV for LVEF assessment may not be warranted. As the gated blood pool SPECT also showed good correlation and agreement with ERNV for LVEF assessment in CAD patients with severe LV dysfunction, with better characteristics than ERNV, it can be routinely used whenever accurate LVEF assessment is needed.
Authors: Vladimir V Shipulin; Sergey L Andreev; Andrew S Pryakhin; Andrew V Mochula; Alina N Maltseva; Svetlana I Sazonova; Vladimir M Shipulin; Samia Massalha; Konstantin V Zavadovsky Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-02-12 Impact factor: 10.057