Evaluation of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by 99mTc-MIBI gated SPECT and 18F-FDG gated PET in patients with prior myocardial infarction
- 20 Downloads
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.
KeywordsMyocardial infarction 99mTc-MIBI gated SPECT 18F-FDG gated PET CMR ejection fraction
Left ventricular ejection fraction
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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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.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
- 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.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
- 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