Comparison of 16-frame and 8-frame gated SPET imaging for determination of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction

  • Sachin M. Navare
  • Frans J. T. Wackers
  • Yi-Hwa LiuEmail author
Original Article


Electrocardiographic (ECG) gated single-photon emission tomography (SPET) allows for simultaneous assessment of myocardial perfusion and left ventricular (LV) function. Presently 8-frame per cardiac cycle ECG gating of SPET images is standard. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of 8-frame and 16-frame gated SPET on measurements of LV volumes and to evaluate the effects of the presence of myocardial perfusion defects and of radiotracer dose administered on the calculation of LV volumes. A total of 86 patients underwent technetium-99m SPET myocardial perfusion imaging using 16-frame per cardiac cycle acquisition. Eight-frame gated SPET images were generated by summation of contiguous frames. Left ventricular end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV) and ejection fraction (EF) were calculated from the 16-frame and 8-frame data sets. The patients were divided into groups according to the administered dose of the radiotracer and the size of the perfusion defect. Results. Sixteen frame per cardiac cycle acquisition resulted in significantly larger EDV (122±72 ml vs 115±68 ml, P<0.0001), smaller ESV (64±58.6 ml vs 67.6±59.5 ml, P<0.0001), and higher LVEF (55.3%±18% vs 49%±17.4%, P<0.0001) as compared to 8-frame SPET imaging. This effect was seen regardless of whether a high or a low dose was administered and whether or not significant perfusion defects were present. This study shows that EDV, ESV and LVEF determined by 16-frame gated SPET are significantly different from those determined by 8-frame gated SPET. The radiotracer dose and perfusion defects do not affect estimation of LV parameters by 16-frame gated SPET.


Gated SPET LV volumes Ejection fraction 



We thank Anne-Marie Quirk M.D., for her assistance in data collection and Wendy Bruni, Jeff Pestallozi, Maryjo Zito, Maung Khin and Vera Tastkin for their technical support.


  1. 1.
    Germano G, Kiat H, Kavanagh PB, et al. Automatic quantification of ejection fraction from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med 1995; 36:2138–2147.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DePuey EG, Nichols K, Dobrinsky C. Left ventricular ejection fraction assessed from gated technetium-99m sestamibi SPECT. J Nucl Med 1993; 34:1871–1876.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williams KA, Taillon LA. Left ventricular function in patients with coronary artery disease assessed by gated tomographic myocardial perfusion images: comparison with assessment by contrast ventriculography and first-pass radionuclide angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996; 27:173–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mannting F, Morgan-Mannting MG. Gated SPECT with technetium-99m-sestamibi for assessment of myocardial perfusion abnormalities. J Nucl Med 1993; 34:601–608.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith WH, Kastner RJ, Calnon DA, Segalla D, Beller GA, Watson DD. Quantitative gated single photon emission computed tomography imaging: a count based method for display and measurement of regional and global ventricular systolic function. J Nucl Cardiol 1997; 4:451–463.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calnon DA, Kastner RJ, Smith WH, Segalla D, Beller GA, Watson DD. Validation of a new count based gated single photon emission computed tomography method for quantifying left ventricular systolic function: comparison with equilibrium radionuclide angiography. J Nucl Cardiol 1997; 4:464–471.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Faber TL, Cooke CD, Folks RD, et al. Left ventricular function and perfusion from gated SPECT perfusion images: an integrated method. J Nucl Med 1999; 40:650–659.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ziffer J, Cooke CD, Folks RD, LaPidus A, Alzaraki N, Garcia EV. Quantitative myocardial thickening assessed with sestamibi: clinical evaluation of a count based method [abstract]. J Nucl Med 1991; 32 (Suppl):1006.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cooke CD, Garcia EV, Cullom SJ, et al. Determining the accuracy of calculating systolic wall thickening using a fast Fourier transform approximation: a simulation study based on canine and patient data. J Nucl Med 1994; 35:1185–1192.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DePuey EG, Rozanski A. Using gated technetium 99m sestamibi SPECT to characterize fixed myocardial defects as infarct or artifact. J Nucl Med 1995; 36:952–955.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mochizuki T, Murase K, Tanaka H, Kondoh T, Hamamoto K, Tauxe WN. Assessment of left ventricular volume using ECG-gated SPECT with technetium-99m-MIBI and technetium-99m-tetrofosmin. J Nucl Med 1997; 38:53–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vaduganathan P, He ZX, Vick GW III, Mahmarian JJ, Verani MS. Evaluation of left ventricular wall motion, volumes and ejection fraction by gated myocardial tomography with technetium 99m-labelled tetrofosmin: a comparison with cine magnetic resonance imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 1999; 6:3–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Atsma DE, Kayser HWM, Croon C, et al. Good correlation between left ventricular ejection fraction, end systolic and end diastolic volume measured by gated SPECT as compared to magnetic resonance imaging [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 33 (Suppl):436A.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iskandrian AE, Germano G, VanDecker W, et al. Validation of left ventricular volume measurements by gated SPECT99mTc-labeled sestamibi imaging. J Nucl Med 1998; 5:574–578.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Germano G, VanDecker W, Mintz R, et al. Validation of left ventricular volumes automatically measured with gated myocardial perfusion SPECT [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31 (Suppl):43A.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yoshiko J, Hasegawa S, Yamaguchi H, et al. Left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction calculated from quantitative electrocardiographic-gated99mTc-Tetrofosmin myocardial SPECT. J Nucl Med 1999; 40:1693–1698.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mathew D, Zabrodina Y, Mannting F. Volumetric and functional analysis of left ventricle by gated SPECT: a comparison with echocardiographic measurements [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31 (Suppl):44A.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nichols K, Tamis J, DePeuy EG, Meires J, Malhotra S, Rozanski A. Relationship of gated SPECT ventricular function parameters to angiographic measurements. J Nucl Cardiol 1998; 5:295–303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kumita S, Cho K, Nakajo H, et al. Assessment of left ventricular diastolic function with electrocardiography-gated myocardial perfusion SPECT: comparison with multigated equilibrium radionuclide angiography. J Nucl Cardiol 2001; 8:568–574.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu YH, Sinusas AJ, DeMan P, Zaret BL, Wackers FJT. Quantification of SPECT myocardial perfusion images: methodology and validation of the Yale-CQ method. J Nucl Cardiol 1999; 6:190–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu YH. A new approach of quantification of left ventricular volume for gated SPECT imaging: preliminary validation using a Phantom [abstract]. J Nucl Cardiol 2001; 8:S61.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu YH, Harrell CR, Tsatkin V, et al. Evaluation of a new quantification method for gated SPECT imaging: comparison with the quantitative gated SPECT (QGS) method in patients [abstract]. J Nucl Cardiol 2001; 8:S65.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lam PT, Wackers FJT, Liu YH. Validation of a new method for quantification of left ventricular function from ECG-gated SPECT [abstract]. J Nucl Med 2001; 42:93P.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hwang WS, Fernando GP, Natale D,et al. Comparison and validation of 3 gated SPECT programs for volume determination using ventricular casts of excised canine hearts [abstract]. J Nucl Med 2001; 42:46P.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tou JT, Gonzalez RC. Pattern recognition principles. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1974.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; i:307–310.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vallejo E, Dione DP, Bruni WL, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of gated SPECT for determination of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction: experimental validation using MRI. J Nucl Med 2000; 41:874–882.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Everaert H, Bossuyt A, Franken PR. Left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes from gated single photon emission tomographic myocardial perfusion images: comparison between two algorithms working in three-dimensional space. J Nucl Cardiol 1997; 4:472–476.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chua T, Yin LC, Thiang TH, Choo TB, Ping DZ, Leng LY. Accuracy of the automated assessment of left ventricular function with gated perfusion SPECT in the presence of perfusion defects and left ventricular dysfunction: correlation with equilibrium radionuclide ventriculography and echocardiography. J Nucl Cardiol 2000; 7:301–311.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Manrique A, Faraggi A, Vera P, Vilain D, Lebtahi R, Cribier A, Le Guludec D.201Tl and 99mTc-MIBI gated SPECT in patients with large perfusion defects and left ventricular dysfunction: comparison with equilibrium radionuclide angiography. J Nucl Med 1999; 40:805–809.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    White HD, Norris RM, Brown MA, Brandt PW, Whitlock RM, Wild CJ. Left ventricular end-systolic volume as the major determinant of survival after recovery from myocardial infarction. Circulation 1987; 76:44–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hamer AW, Takayama M, Abraham KA, et al. End-systolic volume and long term survival after coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients with impaired left ventricular function. Circulation 1994; 90:2899–2904.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sharir T, Germano G, Kavanagh PB, et al. Incremental prognostic value of post-stress left ventricular ejection fraction and volume by gated myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography. Circulation 1999; 100:1035–1042.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sachin M. Navare
    • 1
  • Frans J. T. Wackers
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yi-Hwa Liu
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal MedicineYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Cardiovascular Nuclear Imaging LaboratoryYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations