Yong Yao1, Da-Wei Wang1, Wei Fang1, Yue-Qin Tian1, Rui Shen1, Xiao-Xin Sun1, Feng Guo1, Ke-Wei Chu1, Chen Cui2, Shi-Hua Zhao2, Zuo-Xiang He3,4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fu Wai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 167, Bei Li Shi Lu, Beijing, 100037, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fu Wai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fu Wai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 167, Bei Li Shi Lu, Beijing, 100037, People's Republic of China. zuoxianghe@hotmail.com. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, Tsinghua University, Beijing, People's Republic of China. zuoxianghe@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of gated-SPECT (GSPECT) and gated-PET (GPET) in the assessment of left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volumes (EDVs), end-systolic volumes (ESVs) and LV ejection fractions (LVEFs) among patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: One hundred and sixty-eight consecutive patients with MI who underwent GSPECT and GPET were included. Of them, 76 patients underwent CMR in addition to the two imaging modalities. The measurements of LV volumes and LVEF were performed using Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS), Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTB), and 4D-MSPECT (4DM). RESULTS: The correlation between GPET, GSPECT, and CMR were excellent for LV EDV (r = 0.855 to 0.914), ESV (r = 0.852 to 0.949), and LVEF (r = 0.618 to 0.820), as calculated from QGS, ECTB, and 4DM. In addition, subgroup analysis revealed that EDV, ESV, and LVEF measured by GPET were accurate in patients with different extents of total perfusion defect (TPD), viable myocardium, and perfusion/metabolic mismatch. Furthermore, multivariate regression analysis identified that mismatch score was associated with the difference in EDV (P < 0.05) measurements between GPET and CMR. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with MI, LV volumes and LVEF scores measured by both GSPECT and GPET imaging were comparable to those determined by CMR, but should not be interchangeable in individual patients.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of gated-SPECT (GSPECT) and gated-PET (GPET) in the assessment of left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volumes (EDVs), end-systolic volumes (ESVs) and LV ejection fractions (LVEFs) among patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: One hundred and sixty-eight consecutive patients with MI who underwent GSPECT and GPET were included. Of them, 76 patients underwent CMR in addition to the two imaging modalities. The measurements of LV volumes and LVEF were performed using Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS), Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTB), and 4D-MSPECT (4DM). RESULTS: The correlation between GPET, GSPECT, and CMR were excellent for LV EDV (r = 0.855 to 0.914), ESV (r = 0.852 to 0.949), and LVEF (r = 0.618 to 0.820), as calculated from QGS, ECTB, and 4DM. In addition, subgroup analysis revealed that EDV, ESV, and LVEF measured by GPET were accurate in patients with different extents of total perfusion defect (TPD), viable myocardium, and perfusion/metabolic mismatch. Furthermore, multivariate regression analysis identified that mismatch score was associated with the difference in EDV (P < 0.05) measurements between GPET and CMR. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with MI, LV volumes and LVEF scores measured by both GSPECT and GPET imaging were comparable to those determined by CMR, but should not be interchangeable in individual patients.