Model dependence of gated blood pool SPECT ventricular function measurements

BACKGROUND: Calculation differences between various gated blood pool (GBP) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (GBPS) algorithms may arise as a result of different modeling assumptions. Little information has been available thus far regarding differences for right ventricular (RV) function calculations, for which GBPS may be uniquely well suited. METHODS AND RESULTS: Measurements of QBS (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif) and BP-SPECT (Columbia University, New York, NY) algorithms were evaluated. QBS and BP-SPECT left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) correlated strongly with conventional planar-GBP LVEF for 422 patients (r = 0.81 vs r = 0.83). QBS correlated significantly more strongly with BP-SPECT for LVEF than for RVEF (r = 0.80 vs r = 0.41). Both algorithms demonstrated significant gender differences for 31 normal subjects. BP-SPECT normal LVEF (67% +/- 9%) was significantly closer to values in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) literature (68% +/- 5%) than QBS (58% +/- 9%), but both algorithms underestimated normal RVEF (52% +/- 7% and 50% +/- 9%) compared with the MRI literature (64% +/- 9%). For 21 patients, QBS correlated similarly to MRI as BP-SPECT for LVEF (r = 0.80 vs r = 0.85) but RVEF correlation was significantly weaker (r = 0.47 vs r = 0.81). For 16 dynamic phantom simulations, QBS LVEF correlated similarly to BP-SPECT (r = 0.81 vs r = 0.91) but QBS RVEF correlation was significantly weaker (r = 0.62 vs r = 0.82). Volumes were lower by QBS than BP-SPECT for all data types. CONCLUSIONS: Both algorithms produced LV parameters that correlated strongly with all forms of image data, but all QBS RV relationships were significantly different from BP-SPECT RV relationships. Differences between the two algorithms were attributed to differences in their underlying ventricular modeling assumptions.     

Comparative study of quantitative blood pool SPECT imaging with 180° and 360° acquisition orbits on accuracy of cardiac function

BACKGROUND: Quantitative blood pool single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (QBS) can measure ejection fraction (EF) and volumes from gated blood pool single photon emission tomography (GBPS) working in fully automatic mode in 3-dimensional space. The effects of 180 degrees and 360 degrees data acquisition in GBPS have not been fully evaluated. This study compares the accuracy of 360 degrees and 180 degrees data acquisition for left ventricular (LV) systolic function in a clinical study and measures LV volume by GBPS compared with ultrasound echocardiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population comprised 9 normal volunteers and 34 patients. GBPS data were acquired by use of 360 degrees rotation and 60 stops per head. All 60 (360 degrees ) and 30 (45 degrees right anterior oblique to 45 degrees left posterior oblique) pieces of projection data that were selected for reconstructing the 180 degrees data were reconstructed and both ventricular functional parameters were automatically obtained by QBS software. The contour of the LV septal wall was concave in 6 patients (14%) when processed at 180 degrees , whereas a concave septum at 360 degrees processing was observed in only 1 patient (2%). The coefficients of correlation between 180 degrees and 360 degrees were 0.467 for the end-diastolic volume (EDV) and 0.648 for the end-systolic volume (ESV). The mean 180 degrees EDV value (152.9 +/- 46.1 mL) was significantly smaller than that of the 360 degrees EDV (191 +/- 70.8 mL) ( P < .001). However, there was no significant difference between the 360 degrees EDV (0.623) and 180 degrees EDV (0.407) as compared by echocardiography ( P = .218). The agreement of the EF between both methods was close ( r = 0.894, P < .0001). The agreement of the right ventricular volumes between the 180 degrees and 360 degrees orbits was close ( r = 0.800 for EDV and 0.706 for ESV). The EF was relatively dispersed between the 180 degrees and 360 degrees methods ( r = 0.642). CONCLUSION: This study showed that SPECT image acquisition by use of both the 180 degrees method and the 360 degrees method considerably underestimated LV volume quantification. In addition, the LV volume with the 180 degrees method was significantly smaller than that with the 360 degrees method. Thus a 360 degrees acquisition orbit may be suitable for more quantitatively accurate results when blood pool imaging is performed with gated SPECT.     

Left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes from gated blood-pool SPECT: comparison with planar gated blood-pool imaging and assessment of repeatability in patients with heart failure.

Gated blood-pool SPECT (GBPS) has several potential advantages over planar radionuclide ventriculography (PRNV), including the possibility of greater repeatability of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and the noninvasive calculation of left ventricular end-systolic volume and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV). The aim of this study was to assess the repeatability of LVEF and LVEDV from GBPS and to compare LVEF with those from PRNV. METHODS: Fifty patients underwent PRNV and GBPS, 23 of whom also had repeated studies in the same session. GPBS studies were processed using the Cedars Sinai Quantitative Blood-Pool SPECT (QBS) software that automatically calculates LVEF and LVEDV. Automatic processing with QBS was successful in 70% of the GBPS studies, with the remaining studies processed using the manual option in QBS. All PRNV studies were processed using a manual processing technique. RESULTS: Comparison of LVEF from PRNV and GBPS yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.80. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean difference of 0.74% +/- 7.62% (mean +/- SD) between LVEF from the 2 techniques. The 95% limits of agreement are therefore -14.50% to +15.98%. The correlation between repeated measurements was 0.87 for GBPS and 0.95 for PRNV. Bland-Altman analysis revealed poorer repeatability for GBPS (95% limits of agreement, -9.63% to +14.97% vs. -4.66% to +5.92%; P = 0.003). The mean LVEDV was 198 +/- 94 mL, with a mean difference of 9 +/- 47 mL between repeated measurements. The 95% limits of agreement are therefore -85 to +103 mL. CONCLUSION: GBPS provides a less repeatable measurement of LVEF than PRNV. Repeatability of LVEDV measurements from GBPS is poor.     

Validation of gated blood-pool SPECT cardiac measurements tested using a biventricular dynamic physical phantom.

We have developed a biventricular dynamic physical cardiac phantom to test gated blood-pool (GBP) SPECT image-processing algorithms. Such phantoms provide absolute values against which to assess accuracy of both right and left computed ventricular volume and ejection fraction (EF) measurements. METHODS: Two silicon-rubber chambers driven by 2 piston pumps simulated crescent-shaped right ventricles wrapped partway around ellopsoid left ventricles. Twenty experiments were performed at Ghent University, for which right and left ventricular true volume and EF ranges were 65-275 mL and 55-165 mL and 7%-49% and 12%-69%, respectively. Resulting 64 x 64 simulated GBP SPECT images acquired at 16 frames per R-R interval were sent to Columbia University, where 2 observers analyzed images independently of each other, without knowledge of true values. Algorithms automatically segmented right ventricular activity volumetrically from left ventricular activity. Automated valve planes, midventricular planes, and segmentation regions were presented to observers, who accepted these choices or modified them as necessary. One observer repeated measurements >1 mo later without reference to previous determinations. RESULTS: Linear correlation coefficients (r) of the mean of the 3 GBP SPECT observations versus true values for right and left ventricles were 0.80 and 0.94 for EF and 0.94 and 0.95 for volumes, respectively. Correlations for right and left ventricles were 0.97 and 0.97 for EF and 0.96 and 0.89 for volumes, respectively, for interobserver agreement and 0.97 and 0.98 for EF and 0.96 and 0.90 for volumes, respectively, for intraobserver agreement. No trends were detected, though volumes and right ventricular EFs were significantly higher than true values. CONCLUSION: Overall, GBP SPECT measurements correlated strongly with true values. The phantom evaluated shows considerable promise for helping to guide algorithm developments for improved GBP SPECT accuracy.     

Automatic quantification of right ventricular function with gated blood pool SPECT

BACKGROUND: Quantification of right ventricular (RV) function is clinically relevant for the risk stratification and follow-up of patients with a wide spectrum of disease. This can be achieved with electrocardiography-gated blood pool single photon emission computed tomography (GBPS). We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the completely automatic QBS GBPS processing software as compared with equilibrium planar radionuclide angiography (RNA) and with a GBPS manual segmentation method (GBPS(35%)) for the measurement of global RV ejection fraction (EF), taking the first-pass RNA (FP-RNA) as the gold standard. In parallel, we compared the RVEF, RV end-diastolic volume (EDV), and RV end-systolic volume (ESV) provided by QBS and GBPS(35%). METHODS AND RESULTS: The population included 85 patients with chronic post-embolic pulmonary hypertension. Twenty-one patients were excluded because of unsuccessful FP-RNA. Intraobserver and interobserver RVEF, RVEDV, and RVESV reproducibilities encountered with planar RNA, QBS, and GBPS(35%) were similar and compared favorably with those calculated with FP-RNA for RVEF. Mean RVEF was different between all methods. RVEF calculated with FP-RNA was better correlated to QBS (r = 0.68) and GBPS(35%) (r = 0.70) than to planar RNA (r = 0.59). RVEDV and RVESV with QBS were lower than with GBPS(35%), by 29% +/- 14% and 36% +/- 13%, respectively. RVEDV and RVESV with QBS were highly correlated to corresponding GBPS(35%) values: r = 0.88 and r = 0.91, respectively. CONCLUSION: As opposed to FP-RNA, GBPS is highly successful for the quantification of RV function. Both QBS and GBPS(35%) provide RVEF values similarly well correlated to FP-RNA and performed better than planar RNA. RVEF, RVEDV, and RVESV provided by QBS and GBPS(35%) are highly correlated. All of these RV functional measurements require further validation versus a better gold standard before their accuracy can be established.     

Automated short-axis cardiac magnetic resonance image acquisitions: accuracy of left ventricular dimension measurements in normal subjects and patients

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the use of an automated observer-independent planning system for short-axis cardiovascular magnetic resonance (MR) acquisitions in the clinical environment. The capacity of the automated method to produce accurate measurements of left ventricular dimensions and function was quantitatively assessed in normal subjects and patients. METHODS: Fourteen healthy volunteers and 8 patients underwent cardiovascular MR (CMR) acquisitions for ventricular function assessment. Short-axis datasets of the left ventricle (LV) were acquired in 2 ways: manually planned and generated in an automatic fashion. End-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), ejection fraction (EF), and left ventricular mass (LVM) were derived from the 2 datasets. The agreement between the manual and automatic planning methods was assessed. RESULTS: The mean differences between the manual and automated CMR planning methods for the normal subjects and patients were 5.89 mL and 1.93 mL (EDV), 1.14 mL and -0.41 mL (ESV), 0.81% and 0.89% (EF), and 4.35 g and 3.88 g (LVM), respectively. There was no significant difference in ESV and EF. LVM significantly differed in both groups, whereas EDV was significantly different in the normal subjects and insignificantly different in the patients. The variability coefficients were 2.8 and 3.59 (EDV), 3.3 and 5.03 (ESV), 1.79 and 2.65 (EF), and 4.36 and 2.27 (LVM) for the normal subjects and patients, respectively. The mean angular deviation of the LV axes turned out to be 8.58 +/- 5.76 degrees for the normal subjects and 8.35 +/- 5.15 degrees for the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Automated CMR planning method can provide accurate measurements of LV dimensions in normal subjects and patients, and therefore, can be used in the clinical environment for functional assessment of the human cardiovascular system.     

Measurement of ventricular volumes and function: a comparison of gated PET and cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

The aim of this study was to compare cardiac volume and function assessment using PET with the reference technique of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). METHODS: Left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV), and ejection fractions (EF) were measured in 9 patients using both CMR and PET with inhaled C(15)O. RESULTS: Correlation between the techniques was generally reasonable (r values ranged from 0.63 to 0.99). Best agreement was seen for ESV (LV and RV). With PET, there was a tendency to underestimate LV EF and EDV, and RV EDV and SV. Agreement was worst for LV SV. Percentage difference between CMR and PET measurements ranged from -2% to 15%; Bland-Altman limits of agreement ranged from 24% to 75%. CONCLUSION: Although small systematic differences exist, the agreement between PET and CMR suggests useful information regarding function, and volumes may be obtained from a standard PET protocol.     

Electrocardiographically gated blood-pool SPECT and left ventricular function: comparative value of 3 methods for ejection fraction and volume estimation.

The current major limitation to development of electrocardiographically (ECG) gated blood-pool SPECT (GBPS) for measurement of the left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) and volumes is the lack of availability of clinically validated automatic processing software. Recently, 2 processing software methods for quantification of the LV function have been described. Their LVEFs have been validated separately, but no validation of the LV volume measurement has been reported. METHODS: We compared 3 processing methods for evaluation of the LVEF (n = 29) and volumes (n = 58) in 29 patients: automatic geometric method (GBPS(G)), semiautomatic activity method (GBPS(M)), and 35% maximal activity manual method (GBPS(35%)). The LVEF provided by the ECG gated equilibrium planar left anterior oblique view (planar(LAO)) and the LV volumes provided by LV digital angiography (Rx) were used as gold standards. RESULTS: Whereas the GBPS(G) and GBPS(M) methods present similar low percentage variabilities, the GBPS(35%) method provided the lowest percentage variabilities for the LVEF and volume measurements (P < 0.04 and P < 0.02, respectively). The LVEF and volume provided by the 3 methods were highly correlated with the gold standard methods (r > 0.98 and r > 0.83, respectively). The LVEFs provided by the GBPS(35%) and GBPS(M) methods are similar and higher than those of the GBPS(G) method and planar(LAO) method, respectively (P < 0.0001). For the LVEF, there is no correlation between the average and paired absolute difference for the 3 GBPS methods against the planar(LAO) method, and the limits of agreement are relatively large. LV volumes are lower when calculated with the GBPS(M), GBPS(G), and Rx methods (P < 0.0001). However, the GBPS(35%) and Rx methods provide LV volumes that are similar. There is no linear correlation between the average and the paired absolute difference of volumes calculated with the GBPS(G) and GBPS(35%) methods against Rx LV volumes. However, a moderate linear correlation was found with the GBPS(M) method (r = 0.6; P = 0.0001). The 95% limits of agreement between the Rx LV volumes and the 3 GBPS methods are relatively large. CONCLUSION: GBPS is a simple, highly reproducible, and accurate technique for the LVEF and volume measurement. The reported findings should be considered when comparing results of different methods (GBPS vs. planar(LAO) LVEF; GBPS vs. Rx volume) and results of different GBPS processing methods.     

Comparative value of ECG-gated blood pool SPET and ECG-gated myocardial perfusion SPET in the assessment of global systolic left ventricular function

Both electrocardiographically (ECG) gated blood pool SPET (GBPS) and ECG-gated myocardial perfusion SPET (GSPET) are currently used for the measurement of global systolic left ventricular (LV) function. In this study, we aimed to compare the value of GSPET and GBPS for this purpose. The population included 65 patients who underwent rest thallium-201 GSPET imaging at 15 min after (201)Tl injection followed by planar (planar(RNA)) and GBPS equilibrium radionuclide angiography immediately after 4-h redistribution myocardial perfusion SPET imaging. Thirty-five patients also underwent LV conventional contrast angiography (X-rays). LV ejection fraction (EF) and LV volume [end-diastolic (EDV) and end-systolic (ESV) volumes] were calculated with GBPS and GSPET and compared with the gold standard methods (planar(RNA) LVEF and X-ray based calculation of LV volume). For both LVEF and LV volume, the inter-observer variability was lower with GBPS than with GSPET. GBPS LVEF was higher than planar(RNA) (P<0.01) and GSPET LVEF (P<0.01). Planar(RNA) LVEF showed a slightly better correlation with GBPS LVEF than with GSPET LVEF: r=0.87 and r=0.83 respectively. GSPET LV volume was lower than that obtained using X-rays and GBPS (P<0.01 for both). LV volume calculated using X-rays showed a slightly better correlation with GBPS LV volume than with GSPET LV volume: r=0.88 and r=0.83 respectively. On stepwise regression analysis, the accuracy of GSPET for the measurement of LVEF and LV volume was correlated with a number of factors, including planar(RNA) LVEF, signal to noise ratio, LV volume calculated using X-rays, summed rest score and acquisition scan distance (i.e. the radius of rotation). The accuracy of GBPS for the measurement of LVEF and LV volume was correlated only with the signal level, the signal to noise ratio and the acquisition scan distance. Both GSPET and GBPS provide reliable estimation of global systolic LV function. The better reliability of GBPS and in particular its lower sensitivity to different variables as compared with GSPET favours its use when precise assessment of global systolic LV function is clinically indicated.     

Accuracy of 4 different algorithms for the analysis of tomographic radionuclide ventriculography using a physical, dynamic 4-chamber cardiac phantom.

Various automatic algorithms are now being developed to calculate left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) ejection fraction from tomographic radionuclide ventriculography. We tested the performance of 4 of these algorithms in estimating LV and RV volume and ejection fraction using a dynamic 4-chamber cardiac phantom. METHODS: We developed a realistic physical, dynamic 4-chamber cardiac phantom and acquired 25 tomographic radionuclide ventriculography images within a wide range of end-diastolic volumes, end-systolic volumes, and stroke volumes. We assessed the ability of 4 algorithms (QBS, QUBE, 4D-MSPECT, and BP-SPECT) to calculate LV and RV volume and ejection fraction. RESULTS: For the left ventricle, the correlations between reference and estimated volumes (0.93, 0.93, 0.96, and 0.93 for QBS, QUBE, 4D-MSPECT, and BP-SPECT, respectively; all with P < 0.001) and ejection fractions (0.90, 0.93, 0.88, and 0.92, respectively; all with P < 0.001) were good, although all algorithms underestimated the volumes (mean difference [+/-2 SDs] from Bland-Altman analysis: -39.83 +/- 43.12 mL, -33.39 +/- 38.12 mL, -33.29 +/- 40.70 mL, and -16.61 +/- 39.64 mL, respectively). The underestimation by QBS, QUBE, and 4D-MSPECT was greater for higher volumes. QBS, QUBE, and BP-SPECT could also be tested for the right ventricle. Correlations were good for the volumes (0.93, 0.95, and 0.97 for QBS, QUBE, and BP-SPECT, respectively; all with P < 0.001). In terms of absolute volume estimation, the mean differences (+/-2 SDs) from Bland-Altman analysis were -41.28 +/- 43.66 mL, 11.13 +/- 49.26 mL, and -13.11 +/- 28.20 mL, respectively. Calculation of RV ejection fraction correlated well with true values (0.84, 0.92, and 0.94, respectively; all with P < 0.001), although an overestimation was seen for higher ejection fractions. CONCLUSION: Calculation of LV and RV ejection fraction based on tomographic radionuclide ventriculography was accurate for all tested algorithms. All algorithms underestimated LV volume; estimation of RV volume seemed more difficult, with different results for each algorithm. The more irregular shape and inclusion of a relatively hypokinetic RV outflow tract in the right ventricle seemed to cause the greater difficulty with delineation of the right ventricle, compared with the left ventricle.     

Comparison between ECTb and QGS for assessment of left ventricular function from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT

BACKGROUND: The most widely distributed software packages to compute left ventricular (LV) volume and ejection fraction (EF) from gated perfusion tomograms are QGS and the Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb). Because LV modeling and time sampling differ between the algorithms, it is necessary to document relationships between values produced by them and to establish normal limits individually for each software package in order to interpret results obtained for individual patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Gated single photon emission computed tomography technetium 99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion studies were collected and analyzed for 246 patients evaluated for coronary artery disease. QGS and ECTb values of ejection fraction (EF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), and end-systolic volume were found to correlate linearly (r = 0.90, 0.91, and 0.94, respectively), but EF and EDV were significantly lower for QGS than with ECTb (53% +/- 13% vs 61% +/- 13 and 102 +/- 45 mL vs 114 +/- 50 mL, respectively). To compare calculations for healthy subjects between the two software packages, data were also selected for 50 other patients at low likelihood for coronary artery disease, for whom EF and EDV were significantly lower for QGS compared with ECTb (62% +/- 9% vs 67% +/- 8% and 84 +/- 26 mL vs 105 +/- 33 mL, respectively). The ECTb lower limit was 51% for EF and the upper limits were 171 mL for EDV and 59 mL/m(2) for mass-indexed EDV, compared with limits of 44%, 137 mL, and 47 mL/m(2) for QGS. CONCLUSIONS: Although correlations were strong between the two methods of computing LV functional values, statistical scatter was substantial and significant biases and trends observed. Therefore, when both software packages are used at the same site, it will be important to take these differences into consideration and to apply normal limits specific to each set of algorithms.     

Reproducibility of Tl-201 and Tc-99m sestamibi gated myocardial perfusion SPECT measurement of myocardial function

BACKGROUND: We compared the reproducibility of thallium 201 and technetium 99m sestamibi (MIBI) gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) measurement of myocardial function using the Germano algorithm (J Nucl Med 1995;36:2138-47). METHODS AND RESULTS: Gated SPECT acquisition was repeated in the same position in 30 patients who received Tl-201 and in 26 who received Tc-99m-MIBI. The quantification of end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), and ejection fraction (EF) on Tl-201 and Tc-99m-MIBI gated SPECT was processed independently with Cedars-Sinai QGS (Quantitative Gated SPECT) software. The reproducibility of the measurement of ventricular function on Tl-201 gated SPECT was compared with that of Tc-99m-MIBI gated SPECT. Correlation between the 2 measurements for volumes and EF was excellent for the repeated gated SPECT studies of Tl-201 (r = 0.928 to 0.986, P <.05) and Tc-99m-MIBI (r = 0.979 to 0.997, P <.05). However, Bland-Altman analysis revealed the 95% limits of agreement (2 SDs) for volumes and EF were narrower by repeated Tc-99m-MIBI gated SPECT (EDV 14.1 mL, ESV 9.4 mL, EF 5.5%) than by repeated Tl-201 gated SPECT (EDV 24.1 mL, ESV 18.6 mL, EF 10.3%). The root-mean-square values of the coefficient of variation for volumes and EF were smaller by repeated Tc-99m-MIBI gated SPECT (EDV 2.1 mL, ESV 2.7 mL, EF 2.3%) than by repeated Tl-201 gated SPECT (EDV 3.2 mL, ESV 3.5 mL, EF 5.2%). CONCLUSIONS: QGS provides an excellent correlation between repeated gated SPECT with Tl-201 and Tc-99m-MIBI. However, Tc-99m-MIBI provides more reproducible volumes and EF than Tl-201. Tc-99m-MIBI gated SPECT is the preferable method for the clinical monitoring of ventricular function.     

Performance of OSEM and depth-dependent resolution recovery algorithms for the evaluation of global left ventricular function in 201Tl gated myocardial perfusion SPECT.

It is unknown whether the use of ordered-subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) and depth-dependent resolution recovery (RR) will increase the accuracy of (201)Tl electrocardiogram-gated SPECT (GSPECT) for the measurement of global left ventricular (LV) function. METHODS: Fifty-six patients having both rest (201)Tl GSPECT and planar equilibrium radionuclide angiography (planar(RNA)) on the same day were studied. Twenty-nine patients also had LV conventional contrast angiography (Rx). LV ejection fraction (LVEF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), and end-systolic volume (ESV) were calculated with the quantitative gated SPECT software (QGS) using 4 different processing methods: filtered backprojection (FBP), OSEM, RR + FBP, and RR + OSEM. LVEF calculated with planar(RNA) and LV EDV and ESV calculated with Rx were considered gold standards. LVEF and volumes provided with the GSPECT methods were compared with the gold standard methods. RESULTS: LVEF calculated with GSPECT methods (FBP, OSEM, RR + FBP, and RR + OSEM) were similar (not statistically significant) and correlated well with planar(RNA). On Bland-Altman analysis, the mean +/- SD of absolute difference in LVEF with GSPECT FBP, OSEM, RR + FBP, and RR + OSEM methods versus planar(RNA) were similar, with relatively large limits of agreement. LV volumes calculated with the 4 GSPECT methods were significantly lower but correlated well with Rx LV volumes. LV volumes calculated with FBP and OSEM were lower than those calculated with RR + FBP and RR + OSEM (P < 0.01). On Bland-Altman analysis, the mean +/- SD of absolute difference in LV volumes with FBP, OSEM, RR + FBP, and RR + OSEM versus Rx was, respectively, 56 +/- 45 mL (P < 0.01 vs. the other 3 methods), 57 +/- 45 mL (P < 0.01 vs. the other 3 methods), 43 +/- 48 mL, and 46 +/- 47 mL, with correspondingly large limits of agreement. The variance of random error did not differ between FBP, OSEM, RR + FBP, and RR + OSEM for either LVEF or volumes. CONCLUSION: OSEM and FBP presented similar accuracy for LVEF and volume measured with the QGS software. Their combination with depth-dependent RR provided similar LVEF but more accurate LV volumes.     

Agreement between four available algorithms to evaluate global systolic left and right ventricular function from tomographic radionuclide ventriculography and comparison with planar imaging

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Left and right ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF and RVEF) and end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (LVEDV, RVEDV, LVESV and RVESV) can be calculated from tomographic radionuclide ventriculography (TRV). The aim of this study was to validate and compare these parameters obtained using four different TRV software programs (QBS, QUBE, 4D-MSPECT and BP-SPECT). METHODS: LVEF obtained from planar radionuclide ventriculography (PRV) was compared with LVEF obtained from TRV using the four different software programs in 166 patients. Furthermore, ventricular volumes obtained using TRV (QBS, QUBE and 4D-MSPECT) were compared with those obtained using BP-SPECT, the latter being the only method with the validation of ventricular volumes in the literature. RESULTS: The correlation of LVEF between PRV and TRV was good for all methods: 0.81 for QBS, 0.79 for QUBE, 0.71 for 4D-MSPECT and 0.79 for BP-SPECT. The mean differences+/-standard deviation (SD) were 3.16+/-9.88, 10.72+/-10.92, 3.43+/-11.79 and 2.91+/-10.39, respectively. The correlation of RVEF between BP-SPECT and QUBE and QBS was poor: 0.33 and 0.38, respectively. LV volumes calculated using QBS, QUBE and 4D-MSPECT correlated well with those obtained using BP-SPECT (0.98, 0.90 and 0.98, respectively), with mean differences+/-SD of 7.31+/-42.94, -22.09+/-36.07 and -40.55+/-39.36, respectively. RV volumes showed poorer correlation between QBS and BP-SPECT and between QUBE and BP-SPECT (0.82 and 0.57, respectively). CONCLUSION: LVEF calculated using TRV correlates well with that calculated using PRV, but is not interchangeable with the value obtained using PRV. Volume calculations (for left and right ventricle) and RVEF require further validation before they can be used in clinical practice.     

Gated blood-pool SPECT automated versus manual left ventricular function calculations

Planar gated blood-pool imaging (GBPI) is a standard method for non-invasive assessment of left ventricular (LV) function. Gated blood-pool single photon emission computed tomographic (GBPS) data acquisition can be accomplished in the same time as GBPI, with the benefit of enabling visualization of all cardiac chambers simultaneously. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the degree to which automated and manual LVEF calculations agree with one another and with conventional GBPI LVEF measurements. GBPI studies were performed in 22 consecutive, unselected patients, followed by GBPS data acquisition. GBPS left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) calculations were performed by available software (NuSMUGA, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL) automatically and manually, using all LV gated short axis slices. Automatic LVEF assessed by GBPS correlated well with conventional planar GBPI (r = 0.88, P < 0.001). Mean planar GBPI LVEF was 50% +/- 12%, and mean GBPS automatic LVEF was significantly lower at 45% + 14% (P = 0.001), with a mean difference of 6% +/- 5%. Manual GBPS LVEF also correlated well with conventional planar GBPI (r = 0.90, P < 0.0001). Mean LVEF measurement by manual GBPS versus GBPI was significantly higher at 59% +/- 13%, with a mean difference of 10% +/- 6% (P < 0.001). Manual GBPS LVEF values were also significantly higher than automatically determined GBPS LVEF values (P < 0.001). It is concluded that LVEF values assessed by NuSMUGA GBPS software were reproducible, and automatic and manual values correlated well with conventional GBPI values. However, both automatic and manual GBPS calculations were significantly different from one another and from GBPI values, so that GBPI and NuSMUGA calculations cannot be considered to be equivalent.     

Assessment of biventricular function using gated blood pool SPECT with QBS software: comparison with planar radionuclide ventriculography

Quantitative blood pool SPECT (QBS) is a new application for the quantitative assessment of biventricular function from gated blood pool SPECT (TMUGA). In this study, we compared biventricular function between planar radionuclide ventriculography and TMUGA. The reproducibility of measuring biventricular ejection fraction with QBS was also evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients with cardiac disease were enrolled. Following intravenous bolus injection of 740 MBq of 99mTc human serum albumin-DTPA, first-pass radionuclide angiography (FP) and 25-gated interval planar multi-gated blood pool scintigraphy (PMUGA) were performed for the measurement of right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF; %) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; %), respectively. Subsequently TMUGA data set was acquired with a dual-head gamma camera (16 gated intervals). Then, alternative LVEF and RVEF were measured using TMUGA with QBS. Regional left ventricular wall motion for both PMUGA and TMUGA were assessed with a 4-point scoring system respectively. RESULTS: Automatic biventricular border detection using QBS was feasible in 27 of 35 patients (70.7%). Measurements of TMUGA LVEF and RVEF were well reproducible, with interobserver correlation coefficient of 0.98 and 0.97, respectively. TMUGA LVEF showed excellent correlation with PMUGA LVEF (r = 0.98, SEE = 3.92%). The agreement of LV wall motion score between TMUGA and PMUGA was 88.1% (214 of 243 segments), with a kappa value of 0.82. On the other hand, RVEF determined by QBS had a 12.4% average overestimate compared to the same value obtained by FP. Moreover 95% confidential interval of TMUGA RVEF (-28.8 to +4.0%) was wider than that of TMUGA LVEF (-10.7 to +10.7%). CONCLUSION: TMUGA with QBS analysis provided accurate and reproducible data for global and regional left ventricular function. However, the results of RVEF with TMUGA were not satisfying as a replacement for those with FP and modifying the algorithm were needed to improve accuracy of quantification.     

Differences in left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes measured at rest and poststress by gated sestamibi SPECT

Background  Some studies suggested that the poststress left ventricle ejection fraction (LV EF) is lower than rest LV EF in patients with stress-induced ischemia. Methods and Results  By using a 2-day protocol and 30 mCi Tc-99m sestamibi, LV EF, end-systolic volume (ESV), and end-diastolic volume (EDV) were measured with gated SPECT. Of 99 eligible patients, 91 had technically adequate studies. Poststress LV EF minus rest LV EF was defined as ΔLV EF. ΔEDV and ΔESV were similarly defined. Rest and poststress LV EF (r = 0.89), EDV (r = 0.78), and ESV (r = 0.93) were highly correlated (P <.001). Rest LV EF, EDV, and ESV were not significantly different between patients with and without stress-induced ischemia. ΔLV EF was significantly lower in patients with stress-induced ischemia (-3.5% ± 4.5% vs -1.1% ± 4.7%, P ± .02). Mean LV EF poststress in ischemic patients was 55.0% ± 10.5% vs 61.2% ± 10.0% in nonischemic patients (P = .008). However, only 1 patient (3%) with ischemia had ΔLV EF that exceeded the 95% confidence limit of ΔLV EF for normal patients. Ischemia was significantly associated with increased ΔEDV and ΔESV (P <.01). Conclusions  Stress-induced ischemia is associated with poststress reduction in LV EF and increased poststress EDV and ESV. However, the effect of ischemia on the difference between poststress and rest EF measurements is modest and rarely exceeds the confidence limits in normal patients undergoing 2-day protocols. In most patients, poststress LV EF is an accurate reflection of rest LV EF.     

Accuracy of ventricular volume and ejection fraction measured by gated myocardial SPECT: comparison of 4 software programs.

Gated myocardial perfusion SPECT has been used to calculate ejection fraction (EF) and end-diastolic volume (EDV) and has correlated well with conventional methods. However, the comparative accuracy of and correlations across various types of gated SPECT software are not well understood. METHODS: Mathematic phantoms of cylindric-hemispheric hybrid models, ranging in volume from 34 to 266 mL, were generated. The clinical cases consisted of 30 patients who participated in a radionuclide angiography and gated blood-pool (GBP) study in addition to undergoing (99m)Tc-sestamibi gated SPECT. Four kinds of software, Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS), the Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECT), 4D-MSPECT, and Perfusion and Functional Analysis for Gated SPECT (pFAST) were used to compute EF and EDV, and the results were analyzed by multiple comparisons tests. Patients were classified into 4 groups (i.e., no defect, small defect, large defect, and small heart) so that factors affecting variation could be analyzed. RESULTS: In mathematic models > or = 74 mL, volume error was within +/-15%, whereas for a small volume (34 mL), QGS and 4D-MSPECT underestimated the volume and pFAST overestimated it. The respective intra- and interobserver reproducibility of the results was good for QGS (r = 0.99 and 1.00), ECT (r = 0.98 and 0.98), and 4D-MSPECT (r = 0.98 and 0.98) and fair for pFAST (r = 0.88 and 0.85). The correlation coefficient for EF between gated SPECT and the GBP study was 0.82, 0.78, 0.69, and 0.84 for QGS, ECT, 4D-MSPECT, and pFAST, respectively. The correlation coefficient for EDV between gated SPECT and the GBP study was 0.88, 0.89, 0.85, and 0.90, respectively. Although good correlation was observed among the 4 software packages, QGS, ECT, and 4D-MSPECT overestimated EF in patients with small hearts, and pFAST overestimated the true volume in patients with large perfusion defects. Correlation coefficients among the 4 kinds of software were 0.80-0.95 for EF and 0.89-0.98 for EDV. CONCLUSION: All 4 software programs showed good correlation between EF or EDV and the GBP study. Good correlation was observed also between each pair of quantification methods. However, because each method has unique characteristics that depend on its specific algorithm and thus behaves differently in the various patient subgroups, the methods should not be used interchangeably.     

Is TOMPOOL (gated blood-pool SPECT processing software) accurate to diagnose right and left ventricular dysfunction in a clinical setting?

Background

The assessment of right ventricular function is crucial for management of heart disease. TOMPOOL is a software that processes data acquired with Tomographic Equilibrium Radionuclide Ventriculography. In this report, TOMPOOL’s diagnostic accuracy and inter-observer reproducibility were assessed in a cohort of patients with various etiologies of ventricular dysfunction.

Methods and Results

End-diastolic volume (EDV), ejection fraction (EF), and cardiac output (CO) were calculated for the right ventricle (RV) and the left ventricle (LV) using TOMPOOL in 99 consecutive patients. Thirty-five patients underwent cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) considered as the reference-standard to measure EDV and EF; the Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients were r = 0.73/0.80 and 0.67/0.73 for right/left EF and EDV, respectively. Twenty-one patients had thermodilution measurements of right CO (reference-standard), the correlation was r = 0.57. The best cut-off points (sensitivity/specificity) in order to diagnose a ventricular dysfunction or enlargement were 46% for RVEF (67%/89%), 62% for LVEF (100%/90%), 94 mL for RVEDV (77%/73%), and 84 mL for LVEDV (100%/91%). The areas under the ROC curve were, respectively, 0.79, 0.91, 0.83, and 0.99. Inter-observer reproducibility was r = 0.81/0.94, 0.77/0.90, and 0.78/0.75 for Right/Left EF, EDV, and CO, respectively.

Conclusion

TOMPOOL is accurate: measurements of EDV, EF, and CO are reproducible and correlate with CMR and thermodilution. However, thresholds must be adjusted.     

Day-to-day variability of global left ventricular functional and perfusional measurements by quantitative gated SPECT using Tc-99m tetrofosmin in patients with heart failure due to coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND: Although myocardial gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is routinely used for functional measurements in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and heart failure, day-to-day variability of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular (LV) volumes, and global perfusion scoring has not yet been investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 20 consecutive patients with CAD and an LVEF lower than 40% who routinely underwent a resting tetrofosmin gated SPECT study, we performed an additional gated SPECT study at rest 1 to 5 days later under the same circumstances. LV volumes and LVEF were calculated from the gated SPECT data by commercially available software (QGS). Myocardial perfusion was scored visually by use of a 20-segment, 5-point scoring method. For global LV function and perfusion, agreement between data was investigated by use of Bland-Altman plotting. The 95% limits of agreement found by Bland-Altman analysis were -0.9% +/- 6.0% for LVEF, 3 +/- 20 mL for LV end-diastolic volume, and 4 +/- 20 mL for LV end-systolic volume. CONCLUSION: In CAD patients with an LVEF lower than 40%, day-to-day variability of measurements of global myocardial function and perfusion is quite similar to interobserver and intraobserver variability. Day-to-day variability of global LV functional parameters obtained by gated cardiac SPECT is fairly small, which indicates that myocardial gated SPECT can be used in daily clinical practice to determine changes in global LV function and perfusion over time in patients with diminished LV function.