Antoine Plateau1, Clément Bouvet2, Charles Merlin2,3, Bruno Pereira4, Bertrand Barres2,5, Guillaume Clerfond3,6, Florent Cachin2,5, Lucie Cassagnes7,8. 1. Department of Radiology, CHU Gabriel Montpied, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 2. Nuclear Medicine Department, Jean Perrin Comprehensive Cancer, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 3. Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, SIGMA Clermont, Institut Pascal, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 4. DRCI, CHU Gabriel Montpied, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 5. UMR INSERM 1240 "Molecular Imaging and Theranostic Strategy", Clermont Auvergne University, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 6. Department of Cardiology, CHU Gabriel Montpied, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 7. Department of Radiology, CHU Gabriel Montpied, Clermont-Ferrand, France. lcassagnes@chu-clermontferrand.fr. 8. Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, SIGMA Clermont, Institut Pascal, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. lcassagnes@chu-clermontferrand.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare, vs CMR, four softwares: quantitative gated SPECT (QGS), myometrix (MX), corridor 4DM (4DM), and Emory toolbox (ECTb) to evaluate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end-systolic (ESV), and end-diastolic volumes (EDVs) by gated MPI CZT-SPECT. METHODS: 48 patients underwent MPI CZT-SPECT and CMR 6 weeks after STEMI, LV parameters were measured with four softwares at MPI CZT-SPECT vs CMR. We evaluated (i) concordance and correlation between MPI CZT-SPECT and CMR, (ii) concordance MPI CZT-SPECT/CMR for the categorical evaluation of the left ventricular dysfunction, and (iii) impacts of perfusion defects > 3 segments on concordance. RESULTS: LVEF: LCC QGS/CMR = 0.81 [+ 2.2% (± 18%)], LCC MX/CMR = 0.83 [+ 1% (± 17.5%)], LCC 4DM/CMR = 0.73 [+ 3.9% (± 21%)], LCC ECTb/CMR = 0.69 [+ 6.6% (± 21.1%)]. ESV: LCC QGS/CMR = 0.90 [- 8 mL (± 40 mL)], LCC MX/CMR = 0.90 [- 9 mL (± 36 mL)], LCC 4DM/CMR = 0.89 [+ 4 mL (± 45 mL)], LCC ECTb/CMR = 0.87 [- 3 mL (± 45 mL)]. EDV: LCC QGS/CMR = 0.70 [- 16 mL (± 67 mL)], LCC MX/CMR = 0.68 [- 21 mL (± 63 mL], LCC 4DM/CMR = 0.72 [+ 9 mL (± 73 mL)], LCC ECTb/CMR = 0.69 [+ 10 mL (± 70 mL)]. CONCLUSION: QGS and MX were the two best-performing softwares to evaluate LVEF after recent STEMI.
PURPOSE: To compare, vs CMR, four softwares: quantitative gated SPECT (QGS), myometrix (MX), corridor 4DM (4DM), and Emory toolbox (ECTb) to evaluate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end-systolic (ESV), and end-diastolic volumes (EDVs) by gated MPI CZT-SPECT. METHODS: 48 patients underwent MPI CZT-SPECT and CMR 6 weeks after STEMI, LV parameters were measured with four softwares at MPI CZT-SPECT vs CMR. We evaluated (i) concordance and correlation between MPI CZT-SPECT and CMR, (ii) concordance MPI CZT-SPECT/CMR for the categorical evaluation of the left ventricular dysfunction, and (iii) impacts of perfusion defects > 3 segments on concordance. RESULTS: LVEF: LCC QGS/CMR = 0.81 [+ 2.2% (± 18%)], LCC MX/CMR = 0.83 [+ 1% (± 17.5%)], LCC 4DM/CMR = 0.73 [+ 3.9% (± 21%)], LCC ECTb/CMR = 0.69 [+ 6.6% (± 21.1%)]. ESV: LCC QGS/CMR = 0.90 [- 8 mL (± 40 mL)], LCC MX/CMR = 0.90 [- 9 mL (± 36 mL)], LCC 4DM/CMR = 0.89 [+ 4 mL (± 45 mL)], LCC ECTb/CMR = 0.87 [- 3 mL (± 45 mL)]. EDV: LCC QGS/CMR = 0.70 [- 16 mL (± 67 mL)], LCC MX/CMR = 0.68 [- 21 mL (± 63 mL], LCC 4DM/CMR = 0.72 [+ 9 mL (± 73 mL)], LCC ECTb/CMR = 0.69 [+ 10 mL (± 70 mL)]. CONCLUSION: QGS and MX were the two best-performing softwares to evaluate LVEF after recent STEMI.
Authors: Dudley J Pennell; Udo P Sechtem; Charles B Higgins; Warren J Manning; Gerald M Pohost; Frank E Rademakers; Albert C van Rossum; Leslee J Shaw; E Kent Yucel Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2004 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Clyde W Yancy; Mariell Jessup; Biykem Bozkurt; Javed Butler; Donald E Casey; Mark H Drazner; Gregg C Fonarow; Stephen A Geraci; Tamara Horwich; James L Januzzi; Maryl R Johnson; Edward K Kasper; Wayne C Levy; Frederick A Masoudi; Patrick E McBride; John J V McMurray; Judith E Mitchell; Pamela N Peterson; Barbara Riegel; Flora Sam; Lynne W Stevenson; W H Wilson Tang; Emily J Tsai; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jeptha P Curtis; Seth I Sokol; Yongfei Wang; Saif S Rathore; Dennis T Ko; Farid Jadbabaie; Edward L Portnay; Stephen J Marshalko; Martha J Radford; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-08-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Piotr Ponikowski; Adriaan A Voors; Stefan D Anker; Héctor Bueno; John G F Cleland; Andrew J S Coats; Volkmar Falk; José Ramón González-Juanatey; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Ewa A Jankowska; Mariell Jessup; Cecilia Linde; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; John T Parissis; Burkert Pieske; Jillian P Riley; Giuseppe M C Rosano; Luis M Ruilope; Frank Ruschitzka; Frans H Rutten; Peter van der Meer Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 29.983