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

  • Yong Yao
  • Da-Wei Wang
  • Wei Fang
  • Yue-Qin Tian
  • Rui Shen
  • Xiao-Xin Sun
  • Feng Guo
  • Ke-Wei Chu
  • Chen Cui
  • Shi-Hua Zhao
  • Zuo-Xiang HeEmail author
Original Article



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).


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).


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.


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.


Myocardial infarction 99mTc-MIBI gated SPECT 18F-FDG gated PET CMR ejection fraction 



End-diastolic volume


End-systolic volume


Left ventricular ejection fraction


Myocardial infarction


Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging


Gated positron emission tomography


Gated single photon emission computed tomography


Total perfusion defect




Quantitative gated SPECT



All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

12350_2019_1709_MOESM1_ESM.tif (109 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 109 kb)
12350_2019_1709_MOESM2_ESM.pptx (49 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PPTX 50 kb)


  1. 1.
    Wang C, Han S, Xu T, Wang F, Wang X, Chen J, et al. Evaluation of myocardial viability in old myocardial infarcted patients with CHF: Delayed enhancement MRI vs. low-dose dobutamine stress speckle tracking echocardiography. Am J Transl Res 2016;8:3731-43.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acampa W, Gaemperli O, Gimelli A, Knaapen P, Schindler TH, Verberne HJ, et al. Role of risk stratification by SPECT, PET, and hybrid imaging in guiding management of stable patients with ischaemic heart disease: Expert panel of the EANM cardiovascular committee and EACVI. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;16:1289-98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Case JA, Bateman TM. Taking the perfect nuclear image: quality control, acquisition, and processing techniques for cardiac SPECT, PET, and hybrid imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2013;20:891-907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lucke C, Oppolzer B, Werner P, Foldyna B, Lurz P, Jochimsen T, et al. Comparison of volumetric and functional parameters in simultaneous cardiac PET/MR: feasibility of volumetric assessment with residual activity from prior PET/CT. Eur Radiol 2017;27:5146-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Driessen RS, Leipsic J, Raju R, Naoum C, et al. Comparison of coronary CT angiography, SPECT, PET, and hybrid imaging for diagnosis of ischemic heart disease determined by fractional flow reserve. JAMA Cardiol 2017;2:1100-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Circulation 2012;126:2020-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giorgi MC, Meneghetti JC, Soares J Jr, Izaki M, Falcao A, Imada R, et al. Left ventricular function in response to dipyridamole stress: head-to-head comparison between (82)Rubidium PET and (99m)Tc-sestamibi SPECT ECG-gated myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017;44:876-85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wei H, Tian C, Schindler TH, Qiu M, Lu M, Shen R, et al. The impacts of severe perfusion defects, akinetic/dyskinetic segments, and viable myocardium on the accuracy of volumes and LVEF measured by gated (9)(9)mTc-MIBI SPECT and gated (1)(8)F-FDG PET in patients with left ventricular aneurysm: cardiac magnetic resonance imaging as the reference. J Nucl Cardiol 2014;21:1230-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yamakawa Y, Takahashi N, Ishikawa T, Uchino K, Mochida Y, Ebina T, et al. Clinical usefulness of ECG-gated 18F-FDG PET combined with 99mTC-MIBI gated SPECT for evaluating myocardial viability and function. Ann Nucl Med 2004;18:375-83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tsuboi K, Fuse H, Sasaki M. Evaluation of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by gated myocardial perfusion SPECT versus cardiac MRI. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 2011;67:1304-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li Y, Wang L, Zhao SH, He ZX, Wang DY, Guo F, et al. Gated F-18 FDG PET for assessment of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction using QGS and 4D-MSPECT in patients with heart failure: A comparison with cardiac MRI. PLoS ONE 2014;9:e80227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raja S, Mittal BR, Santhosh S, Bhattacharya A, Rohit MK. Comparison of LVEF assessed by 2D echocardiography, gated blood pool SPECT, 99mTc tetrofosmin gated SPECT, and 18F-FDG gated PET with ERNV in patients with CAD and severe LV dysfunction. Nucl Med Commun 2014;35(11):1156-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Juarez-Orozco LE, Glauche J, Alexanderson E, Zeebregts CJ, Boersma HH, Glaudemans AW, et al. Myocardial perfusion reserve in spared myocardium: correlation with infarct size and left ventricular ejection fraction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40(8):1148-54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Navare SM, Wackers FJ, Liu YH. Comparison of 16-frame and 8-frame gated SPET imaging for determination of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:1330-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang F, Zhang J, Fang W, Zhao SH, Lu MJ, He ZX. Evaluation of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by gated SPECT and cardiac MRI in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36:1611-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yong Yao
    • 1
  • Da-Wei Wang
    • 1
  • Wei Fang
    • 1
  • Yue-Qin Tian
    • 1
  • Rui Shen
    • 1
  • Xiao-Xin Sun
    • 1
  • Feng Guo
    • 1
  • Ke-Wei Chu
    • 1
  • Chen Cui
    • 2
  • Shi-Hua Zhao
    • 2
  • Zuo-Xiang He
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fu Wai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular DiseasesChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fu Wai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular DiseasesChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung HospitalTsinghua UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations