Literature DB >> 34018067

Innovative procedure for measuring left ventricular ejection fraction from 18F-FDG first-pass ultra-sensitive digital PET/CT images: evaluation with an anthropomorphic heart phantom.

Emilie Verrecchia-Ramos1, Olivier Morel2, Paul Retif3,4, Sinan Ben Mahmoud2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is usually measured by cine-cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), planar and single-photon emission-computerized tomography (SPECT) equilibrium radionuclide angiocardiography (ERNA), and echocardiography. It would be clinically useful to measure LVEF from first-pass positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) radionuclide angiography, but this approach has been limited by fast radiotracer diffusion. Ultra-sensitive digital PET systems can produce high-quality images within 3-s acquisition times. This study determined whether digital PET/CT accurately measured LVEF in an anthropomorphic heart phantom under conditions mimicking radiotracer first-pass into the cardiac cavities.
METHODS: Heart phantoms in end-diastole and end-systole were 3D-printed from a patient's MRI dataset. Reference left ventricle end-diastole volume (EDV), end-systole volume (ESV), and LVEF were determined by phantom weights before/after water filling. PET/CT (3-s acquisitions), MRI, and planar and SPECT ERNA were performed. EDV, ESV, and/or LVEF were measured by manual and automated cardiac cavity delineation, using clinical segmentation softwares. LVEF was also measured from PET images converted to 2D "pseudo-planar" images along the short axis and horizontal long axis. LVEF was also calculated for planar ERNA images. All LVEF, ESV and EDV values were compared to the reference values assessed by weighing.
RESULTS: Manually calculated 3D-PET-CT-based EDV, ESV, and LVEF were close to MRI and reference values. Automated calculations on the 3D-PET-CT dataset were unreliable, suggesting that the SPECT-based tool used for this calculation is not well adapted for PET acquisitions. Manual and automated LVEF estimations from "pseudo-planar" PET images were very close/identical to MRI and reference values.
CONCLUSIONS: First-pass "pseudo-planar" PET may be a promising method for estimating LVEF, easy to use in clinical practice. Processing 3D PET images is also a valid method but to date suffers from a lack of well-suited software for automated LV segmentation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Digital PET/CT; First-pass; Heart phantom; LVEF; “Pseudo-planar” PET

Year:  2021        PMID: 34018067     DOI: 10.1186/s40658-021-00387-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  EJNMMI Phys        ISSN: 2197-7364


  9 in total

1.  Automatic quantification of left ventricular ejection fraction from gated blood pool SPECT.

Authors:  S D Van Kriekinge; D S Berman; G Germano
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.952

2.  Evaluation of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by automated gated myocardial SPECT versus cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

Authors:  Eva Persson; Marcus Carlsson; John Palmer; Olle Pahlm; Håkan Arheden
Journal:  Clin Physiol Funct Imaging       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.273

3.  Cineangiography of the heart in a single breath hold with a segmented turboFLASH sequence.

Authors:  D J Atkinson; R R Edelman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Gated blood-pool SPECT versus cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction.

Authors:  François Harel; Vincent Finnerty; Jean Grégoire; Bernard Thibault; François Marcotte; Patricia Ugolini; Paul Khairy
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2010-02-12       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Segmented K-space cine breath-hold cardiovascular MR imaging: Part 1. Principles and technique.

Authors:  D A Bluemke; J L Boxerman; E Atalar; E R McVeigh
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Comparison between new-generation SiPM-based and conventional PMT-based TOF-PET/CT.

Authors:  Kei Wagatsuma; Kenta Miwa; Muneyuki Sakata; Keiichi Oda; Haruka Ono; Masashi Kameyama; Jun Toyohara; Kenji Ishii
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 2.685

7.  NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis.

Authors:  Caroline A Schneider; Wayne S Rasband; Kevin W Eliceiri
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 28.547

8.  Comparison of automatic quantification software for the measurement of ventricular volume and ejection fraction in gated myocardial perfusion SPECT.

Authors:  D P Lum; M N Coel
Journal:  Nucl Med Commun       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 1.690

9.  In vivo labeling of red blood cells with 99mTc: a new approach to blood pool visualization.

Authors:  D G Pavel; M Zimmer; V N Patterson
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 10.057

  9 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  Absolute Quantification in Diagnostic SPECT/CT: The Phantom Premise.

Authors:  Stijn De Schepper; Gopinath Gnanasegaran; John C Dickson; Tim Van den Wyngaert
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-11
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.