Advertisement

Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 125–131 | Cite as

Comparison of left ventricular functional parameters obtained from three different commercial automated software cardiac quantification program packages and their intraobserver reproducibility

  • Zeki Dostbil
  • Zuhal Arıtürk
  • Habib Çil
  • Mehmet Ali Elbey
  • Ebru Tekbaş
  • Mehmet Yazıcı
  • İsmail Yıldız
  • Bekir Taşdemir
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

ECG-gated myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) can be used to determine several cardiac functional parameters (e.g., left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), and end-systolic volume (ESV)). In this study, we aimed to compare these cardiac functional parameters calculated by the following cardiac quantification programs: Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb), Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS), and Myometrix. We also evaluated reproducibility of the cardiac programs.

Methods

Fifty-seven patients (27 male, 30 female) at Elazig Research and Training Hospital from 2008 to 2009 were included in this study. In all patients, 99mTc-MIBI ECG-Gated (8-bin frame mode) myocardial perfusion scintigraphies were performed. By using 3 different cardiac quantification programs (ECTb, QGS, and Myometrix); LVEF, EDV, and ESV were calculated. The same raw data of MPS images were reprocessed at different time periods, and these 3 parameters were recalculated. LVEF, EDV, and ESV yielded by 3 different programs were compared for interprogram variability assessment, and parameters calculated at two different time periods were compared to evaluate intraprogram reproducibility.

Results

There were statistically significant differences between ECTb, QGS, and Myometrix programs for LVEF, EDV, and ESV (p < 0.001). There was also a statistically significant correlation between LVEF and EDV (p < 0.001, r = 0.546; p < 0.001, r = 0.45, respectively), but no statistically significant correlation was present between the ESV values (p > 0.05, r = 0.09). Statistically significant differences were not found between the values of LVEF, EDV, and ESV obtained from the first and second reconstruction analysis of 3 cardiac quantification programs.

Discussion

Different MPS cardiac software programs give variable (but correlated) LVEF and left ventricular volumetric measures. Those obtained from different cardiac softwares cannot be used interchangeably. Our findings have shown that ECTb, QGS, and Myometrix programs are reproducible, with respect to LVEF, EDV, and ESV.

Keywords

Cardiac gated SPECT ECTb QGS Myometrix 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no financial relationship with any organization related to the research, and no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Tout DA, Rogers A, Van Aswegen A, Underwood SR. Left ventricular function parameters obtained from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging: a comparison of two data processing systems. Nucl Med Commun. 2005;26:103–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lavender FM, Meades RT, Al-Nahhas A, Nijran KS. Factors affecting the measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction in myocardial perfusion imaging. Nucl Med Commun. 2009;30:350–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khorsand A, Gyöngyösi M, Graf S, Zamini S, Schuster E, Sochor H, et al. Assessment of left ventricular volume and ejection fraction: comparison of QGS and MBGS analyses of ECG-gated myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging. Nucl Med Commun. 2009;30:300–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thorley PJ, Plein S, Bloomer TN, Ridgway JP, Sivananthan UM. Comparison of 99mTc-tetrofosmin gated SPECT measurements of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction with MRI over a wide range of values. Nucl Med Commun. 2003;24:763–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lipke CS, Kuhl HP, Nowak B, Kaiser HJ, Reinartz P, Koch KC, et al. Validation of 4D-MSPECT and QGS for quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction from gated 99mTc-MIBI SPET: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:482–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Man SC, van der Wall EE, Swenne CA. Gated SPECT: what’s the ideal method to measure LVEF? Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;24:807–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coffey JP, Hill JC. Gated single photon emission tomography MIBI stress perfusion imaging for assessing cardiac output and index in obese and non-obese patients. Ir J Med Sci. 2007;176:297–303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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;7:301–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Persson E, Carlsson M, Palmer Pahlm O, Arheden H. Evaluation of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by automated gated myocardial SPECT versus cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2005;25:135–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paul AK, Hasegawa S, Yoshioka J, Yamaguchi H, Tsujimura E, Nishimura T. Assessment of left ventricular function by gated myocardial perfusion and gated blood-pool SPECT: can we use the same reference database? Ann Nucl Med. 2000;14:75–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faber TL, Vansant JP, Pettigrew RI, Galt JR, Blais M, Chatzimavroudis G, et al. Evaluation of left ventricular endocardial volumes and ejection fractions computed from gated perfusion SPECT with magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of two methods. J Nucl Cardiol. 2001;8:645–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Veen BJ, Scholte AJ, Dibbets-Schneider P, Stokkel MP. The consequences of a new software package for the quantification of gated-SPECT myocardial perfusion studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010. doi: 10.1007/s00259-010-1465-6.
  13. 13.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hedeer F, Palmer J, Arheden H, Ugander M. Gated myocardial perfusion SPECT underestimates left ventricular volumes and shows high variability compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging—a comparison of four different commercial automated software packages. BMC Med Imaging. 2010. doi: 10.1186/1471-2342-10-10.
  15. 15.
    Hutyra M, Skala T, Kaminek M, Zapletalova J. Comparison of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction assessment by two-dimensional echocardiography compared with gated myocardial spect in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2010;154:47–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cosyns B, Haberman D, Droogmans S, Warzée S, Mahieu P, Laurent E, et al. Comparison of contrast enhanced three dimensional echocardiography with MIBI gated SPECT for the evaluation of left ventricular function. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2009;7:27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kroll D, Farah W, McKendall GR, Reinert SE, Johnson LL. Prognostic value of stress-gated Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2001;87:381–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;22:85–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ababneh AA, Sciacca RR, Kim B, Bergmann SR. Normal limits for left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes estimated with gated myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with normal exercise test results: influence of tracer, gender, and acquisition camera. J Nucl Cardiol. 2000;7:661–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lomsky M, Johansson L, Gjertsson P, Bjork J, Edenbrandt L. Normal limits for left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes determined by gated single photon emission computed tomography—a comparison between two quantification methods. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2008;28:169–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paul AK, Nabi HA. Gated myocardial perfusion SPECT: basic principles, technical aspects, and clinical applications. J Nucl Med Technol. 2004;32:179–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yoshioka J, Hasegawa S, Yamaguchi H, Tokita N, Paul AK, Xiuli M, et al. Left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction calculated from quantitative electrocardiographic-gated 99mTc-tetrofosmin myocardial SPECT. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1693–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zeki Dostbil
    • 1
  • Zuhal Arıtürk
    • 2
  • Habib Çil
    • 2
  • Mehmet Ali Elbey
    • 2
  • Ebru Tekbaş
    • 2
  • Mehmet Yazıcı
    • 2
  • İsmail Yıldız
    • 3
  • Bekir Taşdemir
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineDicle University Medical FacultyDiyarbakirTurkey
  2. 2.Department of CardiologyDicle University Medical FacultyDiyarbakirTurkey
  3. 3.Department of BiostatisticsDicle University Medical FacultyDiyarbakirTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Nuclear MedicineElazığ Training and Research HospitalElazigTurkey

Personalised recommendations