Reproducibility of global LV function and dyssynchrony parameters derived from phase analysis of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT: A multicenter comparison with core laboratory setting.

BACKGROUND: Gated myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (GMPS) phase analysis is an important tool to investigate the physiology of left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony. We aimed to test the performance of GMPS LV function and phase analysis in different clinical settings and on a diverse population. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a prospective, non-randomized, multinational, multicenter cohort study. Clinical evaluation and GMPS prior to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)(baseline) and 6-month post CRT (follow-up) were done. LV end-systolic volume (LVESV), LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), LV ejection fraction (LVEF), LV phase standard deviation (LVPSD), and percentage of left ventricle non-viable (PLVNV) were obtained by 10 centers and compared to the core lab. RESULTS: 276 GMPS studies had all data available from individual sites and from core lab. There were no statistically significant differences between all variables except for LVPSD. When subjects with no mechanical dyssynchrony were excluded, LVPSD difference became non-significant. LVESV, LVEF, LVPSD and PLVNV had strong correlation in site against core lab comparison. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated good agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The presented correlation and agreement of LV function and dyssynchrony analysis over different sites with a diverse sample corroborate the strength of GMPS in the management of heart failure in clinical practice.

Clinical and gated SPECT MPI parameters associated with super-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the behavior of cardiac mechanical synchrony as measured by phase SD (PSD) derived from gated MPI SPECT (gSPECT) in patients with super-response after CRT and to evaluate the clinical and imaging characteristics associated with super-response. METHODS: 158 subjects were evaluated with gSPECT before and 6 months after CRT. Patients with an improvement of LVEF > 15% and NYHA class I/II or reduction in LV end-systolic volume > 30% and NYHA class I/II were labeled as super-responders (SR). RESULTS: 34 patients were classified as super-responders (22%) and had lower PSD (32° ± 17°) at 6 months after CRT compared to responders (45° ± 24°) and non-responders 46° ± 28° (P = .02 for both comparisons). Regression analysis identified predictors independently associated with super-response to CRT: absence of previous history of CAD (odds ratio 18.7; P = .002), absence of diabetes mellitus (odds ratio 13; P = .03), and history of hypertension (odds ratio .2; P = .01). CONCLUSION: LV dyssynchrony after CRT implantation, but not at baseline, was significantly better among super-responders compared to non-super-responders. The absence of diabetes, absence of CAD, and history of hypertension were independently associated with super-response after CRT.

Incremental value of left ventricular shape parameters measured by gated SPECT MPI in predicting the super-response to CRT.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the predictive value of left ventricular (LV) shape parameters measured by gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in super-responders enrolled in the VISION-CRT trial. METHODS: One hundred and ninety-nine patients who met standard criteria for CRT from multiple centers were enrolled in this study. End-systolic eccentricity (ESE) and end-diastolic eccentricity (EDE) were measures of LV shape. Super-responders were the patients who had a relative increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 15%. RESULTS: Complete data were obtained in 165 patients, and 43.6% of them were classified as super-responders. ESE was an independent predictor of CRT super-responders in univariate (OR 12.59, 95% CI 1.56-101.35, P = .017) and multivariate analysis (OR 35.71, 95% CI 1.66-766.03, P = .006). ESE had an incremental value over significant clinical and SPECT imaging variables, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blocker, coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, LVEF, end-diastolic volume index, and scar burden (AUC 0.82 vs. 0.80, sensitivity 0.68 vs. 0.65, specificity 0.82 vs. 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: LV shape parameters derived from gated SPECT MPI have the promise to improve the prediction of the super-response to CRT. Moreover, ESE provides incremental value over existing clinical and nuclear imaging variables.

Are there normal values of phase analysis parameters for left ventricular dyssynchrony in patients with no structural cardiomyopathy?: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: ECG-gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion scintigraphy combined with phase analysis allows for the assessment of left ventricular dyssynchrony. However, there are several software programs available thereby introducing variability in outcome and normal values. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the variability between different programs as currently available in literature with a focus on normal values. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the Embase, LILACS and Medline databases looking for articles reporting on normal values of the most used phase analysis parameters. The search resulted in 110 articles from Medline, 349 from Embase and one from LILACS. After exclusion of duplicate articles, 370 documents remained. Of these only 13 were deemed eligible for the systematic review. RESULTS: Phase SD and bandwidth are the main parameters used in dyssynchrony analysis. Most articles reviewed here used the Emory Cardiac ToolBox (ECTb) to determine the phase analysis parameters values, which varied greatly among the four software tested. The bandwidth and phase SD calculated by the Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) tends to be smaller than that calculated by the ECTb. In relation to the bandwidth, ECTb and cardioREPO (cREPO) have higher values than the other software programs. The value of entropy obtained from 4DM is lower than those obtained from QGS and cREPO. CONCLUSION: We found that normal values of phase analysis can vary among software programs and can be different even when the same software is used.