Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 450–458 | Cite as

Interassay reproducibility of myocardial perfusion gated SPECT in patients with atrial fibrillation

  • Santiago Aguadé-BruixEmail author
  • Guillermo Romero-Farina
  • Gemma Cuberas-Borros
  • Marta Milà-Lopez
  • Virginia Pubul-Núñez
  • Rosa Siurana-Escuer
  • David García-Dorado
  • Jaume Candell-Riera
Original Article



The aim of this study was to assess interassay reproducibility of myocardial perfusion gated-SPECT for calculation of end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).


One hundred and fifteen consecutive patients with AF from three participating hospitals (mean age 68.9 years, 39 women) were included in the study. All patients underwent two image gated acquisitions at rest with a 30 minute interval between them. Quantitative data were obtained using the QGS and ECT software algorithms.


Heart rate was similar in both studies: 74.94 ± 15.2 vs 73.03 ± 15.57. QGS yielded an LVEF of 54.4%/53.8%, an EDV of 100 mL/101.5 mL, and an ESV of 51 mL/52.3 mL; and ECT showed an LVEF of 63.6%/62.9%, an EDV of 125.8 mL/127.4 mL and ESV of 54.1 mL/56.3 mL. Correlation between the two acquisitions was high (>0.948) for both methods for LVEF, EDV and ESV. Regression and Bland-Altman graphics showed a good agreement between all parameters. Interassay variation coefficients for each method (QGS/ECT) were 5.29% vs 4.83% for LVEF, 4.94% vs 5.17% for EDV, and 9.94% vs 12.78% for ESV.


Interassay reproducibility of LVEF and EDV with gated-SPECT in patients with AF is good, whereas for ESV it is suboptimal, particularly when ESV is small.


Atrial fibrillation gated-SPECT interassay reproducibility myocardial perfusion imaging 



This study was supported in part by grants from the Cardiovascular Disease Research Network (RECAVA), Instituto Carlos III [(Red C03/01, RECAVA Researchers (Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Enfermedades Cardiovasculares)]. We thank Joan Castell-Conesa (Department of Nuclear Medicine), Gustavo de León (Cardiology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona), Carlos Peña-Gil (Cardiology Department, Complejo Universitario Hospitalario, Santiago de Compostela) and Alfredo Bardají (Cardiology Department, Hospital Universitari Joan XXIII, Tarragona) for their invaluable assistance. The authors have declared no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Castell-Conesa J, Aguadé-Bruix S, García-Burillo A, González JM, Canela T, Oller G, et al. Reproducibilidad de la gated SPECT de perfusión miocárdica en la valoración de la función ventricular y su comparación con la ventriculografía isotópica. Rev Esp Cardiol 2004;57:931-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schaefer WM, Lipke CSA, Standke D, Kühl HP, Nowak B, Kaiser HJ, et al. Quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction from gated 99mTc-MIBI SPECT: MRI validation and comparison of the Emory Cardiac Tool Box with QGS and 4D-MSPECT. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1256-63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iskandrian AE, Germano G, VanDecker W, Ogilby JD, Wolf N, Mintz R, et al. Validation of left ventricular volume measurements by gated SPECT 99mTc-labeled sestamibi imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 1998;5:574-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nichols K, Yao SS, Kamran M, Faber TL, Cooke CD, DePuey EG. Clinical impact of arrhythmias on gated SPECT cardiac myocardial perfusion and function assessment. J Nucl Cardiol 2001;8:19-30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Strauss HW, Zaret BL, Hurley PJ, Natarajan TK, Pitt B. A scintiphotographic method for measuring left ventricular ejection fraction in man without cardiac catheterization. Am J Cardiol 1971;28:575-80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley; 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams KA. A historical perspective on measurement of ventricular function with scintigraphic techniques: Part II—Ventricular function with gated techniques for blood pool and perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2005;12:208-15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ibrahim DY, DiFilippo FP, Steed JE, Cerqueira MD. Optimal SPECT processing and display: Making bad studies look good to get the right answer. J Nucl Cardiol 2006;13:855-66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Aswegen A, Alderson PO, Nickoloff EL, Housholder DF, Wagner HN Jr. Temporal resolution requirements for left ventricular time-activity curves. Radiology 1980;135:165-70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cullom SJ, Case JA, Bateman TM. Electrocardiographically gated myocardial perfusion SPECT Technical principles and quality control considerations. J Nucl Cardiol 1998;5:418-25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bacharach SL, Green MV, Bonow RO, Findley SL, Ostrow HG, Johnston GS. Measurement of ventricular function by ECG gating during atrial fibrillation. J Nucl Med 1981;22:226-31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Small AD, Motherwell DW, Fletcher AM, McCurrach G, Rankin A, Martin W. Assessing ventricular function in patients with atrial fibrillation [abstract]. Nucl Med Commun 2007;28:A2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Small AD, Motherwell DW, Fletcher AM, McCurrach G, Rankin A, Martin W. Can we accurately assess ventricular function in patients with atrial fibrillation [abstract]. J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14:S42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wallis JW, Juni JE, Wu L. Gated cardiac blood pool studies in atrial fibrillation, role of cycle length windowing. Eur J Nucl Med 1991;18:23-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brash HM, Wraith PK, Hannan WJ, Dewhurst NG, Muir AL. The influence of ectopic heart beats in gated ventricular blood-pool studies. J NucI Med 1980;21:391-3.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoffmann R, von Bardeleben S, ten Cate F, Borges AC, Kasprzak J, Firschke C, et al. Assessment of systolic left ventricular function: A multi-center comparison of cineventriculography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, unenhanced and contrast echocardiography. Eur Heart J 2005;26:607-16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Epstein FH. MRI of left ventricular function. J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14:729-44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nichols K, Dorbala S, DePuey EG, Yao SS, Sharma A, Rozanski A. Influence of arrhythmias on gated SPECT myocardial perfusion and function quantification. J Nucl Med 1999;40:924-34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hansen CL, Goldstein RA, Akinboboye OO, Berman DS, Botvinick EH, Churchwell KB, et al. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. Myocardial perfusion and function: Single photon emission computed tomography. J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14:e39-60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vallejo E, Chaya H, Plancarte G, Victoria D, Bialostozky D. Variability of serial same-day left ventricular ejection fraction using quantitative gated SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 2002;9:377-84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hambye AS, Vervaet A, Dobbeleir A. Variability of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes with quantitative gated SPECT: Influence of algorithm, pixel size and reconstruction parameters in small and normal-sized hearts. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:1606-13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Santiago Aguadé-Bruix
    • 1
    Email author
  • Guillermo Romero-Farina
    • 2
  • Gemma Cuberas-Borros
    • 2
  • Marta Milà-Lopez
    • 1
  • Virginia Pubul-Núñez
    • 3
  • Rosa Siurana-Escuer
    • 4
  • David García-Dorado
    • 2
  • Jaume Candell-Riera
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineHospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Cardiology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d’HebronUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear MedicineComplejo Universitario HospitalarioSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  4. 4.Department of Nuclear MedicineHospital Universitari Joan XXIIITarragonaSpain

Personalised recommendations