Evaluation of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by 99mTc-MIBI gated SPECT and 18F-FDG gated PET in patients with prior myocardial infarction.

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.

Evaluation of left and right ventricular ejection fraction and volumes from gated blood-pool SPECT in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy: comparison with cardiac MRI.

UNLABELLED: This prospective study evaluated the accuracy of electrocardiogram-gated blood-pool SPECT (GBPS) for the assessment of left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) ejection fraction (EF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), and end-systolic volume (ESV) in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging as the reference standard. METHODS: Thirty-two patients (24 men and 8 women; mean age, 51 y) with a diagnosis of idiopathic DCM underwent GBPS and CMR. LV and RV parameters including EDV, ESV, and EF from GBPS were calculated using fully automated gradient software and compared with those obtained by CMR. RESULTS: Biventricular volumes were underestimated by GBPS, compared with CMR (P < 0.001). We found no statistical difference between these 2 methods in the assessment of LV EF (P = 0.23), whereas RV EF was overestimated by GBPS (P < 0.001 vs. CMR). Regression analysis yielded significant correlations between GBPS and CMR in the assessments of biventricular parameters (r = 0.83 for LV EDV, 0.88 for LV ESV, 0.89 for LV EF, 0.86 for RV EDV, 0.86 for RV ESV, and 0.62 for RV EF; all P < 0.001). Comparison of the deviations of RV indices between GBPS and CMR with the ratio of RV EDV to LV EDV showed that there was a statistically significant trend for RV volumes to be underestimated and for RV EF to be overestimated as the biventricular volumetric ratio decreased (r = 0.61 for RV EDV, 0.68 for RV ESV, and -0.55 for RV EF; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For patients with DCM, GBPS correlated well with CMR for the assessment of biventricular parameters, but RV indices should be cautiously interpreted.