Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Myocardial perfusion and left ventricular quantitative parameters obtained using gated myocardial SPECT: Comparison of three software packages

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology Aims and scope

Abstract

Background

The aim of the present study was to compare Emory Cardiac Toolbox, Myovation, and Quantitative Gated SPECT software regarding the automatic measurements of perfusion and functional left ventricular (LV) quantitative parameters, summed stress score (SSS), perfusion defect score, LV ejection fraction (LVEF), end-diastolic volume, and end-systolic volume (ESV).

Methods and Results

99mTc-tetrofosmin gated SPECT studies were performed in 634 consecutive patients based on the one-day stress/rest protocol. Participants were divided into subgroups according to heart size (ESV cut-off value: 25 mL), perfusion (SSS >/≤3), and other patient/protocol-related factors. LVEF was categorized as normal (≥50%), mildly moderately impaired (35–49%), and severely abnormal (<35%). The concordance between the packages was good to excellent, in overall population, ESV ≤25 mL, ESV >25 mL, and SSS >3 subgroups (intraclass correlation coefficients, ICCs 0.73–0.93). In SSS ≤3 subgroup, the correlation was excellent for LV functional parameters, but suboptimal for perfusion variables (ICCs 0.30–0.83). LVEF categorization revealed similar variability (discordance 18.1 and 11.1% for stress/rest LVEF values, respectively). Pair comparisons demonstrated considerable differences concerning all parameters for all patient subgroups. The statistical significance of our findings by ESV and SSS classifications was evaluated.

Conclusions

Despite the significant concordance between software packages, considerable differences in mean values of myocardial perfusion and LV functional parameters were demonstrated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Abbreviations

CAD:

Coronary artery disease

ECTb:

Emory Cardiac Toolbox

EDV:

End-diastolic volume

ESV:

End-systolic volume

ICCs:

Intraclass correlation coefficients

LVEF:

Left ventricular ejection fraction

MPI:

Myocardial perfusion imaging

QGS:

Quantitative gated SPECT

SPECT:

Single-photon emission computed tomography

References

  1. Hung GU, Wang YF, Su HY, Hsieh TC, Ko CL, Yen RF. New trends in radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging. Acta Cardiol. Sin. 2016;32(2):156–66.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Romero-Farina G, Candell-Riera J, Aguadé-Bruix S, Pizzi MN, García-Dorado D. Different prognosis according to different clinical, electrocardiographic and scintigraphic ischemia criteria. Int. J. Cardiol. 2016;219:240–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Verberne HJ, Acampa W, Anagnostopoulos C, Ballinger J, Bengel F, De Bondt P, et al. EANM procedural guidelines for radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging with SPECT and SPECT/CT: 2015 revision. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2015;42(12):1929–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Compostella L, Lakusic N, Russo N, Setzu T, Compostella C, Vettore E, et al. Functional parameters but not heart rate variability correlate with long-term outcomes in St-elevation myocardial infarction patients treated by primary angioplasty. Int. J. Cardiol. 2016;224:473–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Motwani M, Berman DS, Germano G, Slomka P. Automated quantitative nuclear cardiology methods. Cardiol. Clin. 2016;34(1):47–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. DePuey EG. Sources of variability of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT quantitative parameters. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2016;23(4):818–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Malhotra S, Soman P. Software-dependent processing variability in SPECT functional parameters: clinical implications. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2016;3:1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Garg N, Dresser T, Aggarwal K, Gupta V, Mittal MK, Alpert MA. Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction values obtained using invasive contrast left ventriculography, two-dimensional echocardiography, and gated single-photon emission computed tomography. SAGE Open Med. 4:2050312116655940, 2016.

  9. Ather S, Iqbal F, Gulotta J, Aljaroudi W, Heo J, Iskandrian AE, et al. Comparison of three commercially available softwares for measuring left ventricular perfusion and function by gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2014;21(4):673–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Danesh-Sani SH, Zakavi SR, Oskoueian L, Kakhki VR. Comparison between 99mTc-sestamibi gated myocardial perfusion SPECT and echocardiography in assessment of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction–effect of perfusion defect and small heart. Nucl. Med. Rev. Cent. East Eur. 2014;17(2):70–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shojaeifard M, Ghaedian T, Yaghoobi N, Malek H, Firoozabadi H, Bitarafan-Rajabi A, et al. Comparison of gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging with echocardiography for the measurement of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction in patients with severe heart failure. Res. Cardiovasc. Med. 2015;5(1):e29005.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kondo C, Watanabe E, Momose M, Fukushima K, Abe K, Hagiwara N, et al. In vivo validation of gated myocardial SPECT imaging for quantification of small hearts: comparison with cardiac MRI. EJNMMI Res. 2016;6(1):9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Slomka P, Xu Y, Berman D, Germano G. Quantitative analysis of perfusion studies: strengths and pitfalls. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2012;19(2):338–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Yoneyama H, Nakajima K, Okuda K, Matsuo S, Onoguchi M, Kinuya S, et al. Reducing the small-heart effect in pediatric gated myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2016;. doi:10.1007/s12350-016-0518-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gimelli A, Liga R, Pasanisi EM, Casagranda M, Coceani M, Marzullo P. Influence of cardiac stress protocol on myocardial perfusion imaging accuracy: the role of exercise level on the evaluation of ischemic burden. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2016;23(5):1114–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wolak A, Slomka PJ, Fish MB, Lorenzo S, Acampa W, Berman DS, et al. Quantitative myocardial-perfusion SPECT: comparison of three state-of-the-art software packages. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2008;15(1):27–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Knollmann D, Knebel I, Koch KC, Gebhard M, Krohn T, Buell U, et al. Comparison of SSS and SRS calculated from normal databases provided by QPS and 4D-MSPECT manufacturers and from identical institutional normals. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2008;35(2):311–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Johansson L, Lomsky M, Marving J, Ohlsson M, Svensson SE, Edenbrandt L. Diagnostic evaluation of three cardiac software packages using a consecutive group of patients. EJNMMI Res. 2011;1(1):22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Knollmann D, Raptis M, Meyer PT, Winz OH, Krohn T, Schaefer WM. Quantitative myocardial perfusion-SPECT: algorithm-specific influence of reorientation on calculation of summed stress score. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2012;37(11):1089–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Johansson L, Edenbrandt L, Nakajima K, Lomsky M, Svensson SE, Trägårdh E. Computer-aided diagnosis system outperforms scoring analysis in myocardial perfusion imaging. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2014;21(3):416–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Harisankar CN, Mittal BR, Kamaleshwaran KK, Parmar M, Bhattacharya A, Singh B, et al. Reliability of left ventricular ejection fraction calculated with gated myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography in patients with extensive perfusion defect. Nucl. Med. Commun. 2011;32(6):503–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ballal S, Patel CD, Singla S, Sharma P, Narang R, Sharma G, et al. Comparison of software programs for the assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction using 99mTc-tetrofosmin-gated SPECT/CT: correlation with equilibrium radionuclide ventriculography in the Indian population. Nucl. Med. Commun. 2012;33(11):1160–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Yap KS, Cherk M, Van Every B, Bailey M, Kelly MJ, Kalff V. Comparison of contemporaneous left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) obtained from planar gated cardiac blood pool scans (GCBPS) and Tl-201 gated myocardial perfusion scans (MPS) using a novel solid state dedicated cardiac camera. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2013;20(3):367–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Khalil MM, Attia A, Ali M, Ziada G, Omar A, Elgazzar A. Echocardiographic validation of the layer of maximum count method in the estimation of the left ventricular EF using gated myocardial perfusion SPECT: correlation with QGS, ECTb, and LVGTF. Nucl. Med. Commun. 2009;30(8):622–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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;10:10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Dostbil Z, Arıtürk Z, Cil H, Elbey MA, Tekbaş E, Yazıcı M, et al. Comparison of left ventricular functional parameters obtained from three different commercial automated software cardiac quantification program packages and their intraobserver reproducibility. Ann. Nucl. Med. 2011;25(2):125–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nakajima K, Okuda K, Kawano M, Matsuo S, Slomka P, Germano G, et al. The importance of population-specific normal database for quantification of myocardial ischemia: comparison between Japanese 360 and 180-degree databases and a US database. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2009;16(3):422–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 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;37(9):1736–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Ruwald MH, Solomon SD, Foster E, Kutyifa V, Ruwald AC, Sherazi S, et al. Left ventricular ejection fraction normalization in cardiac resynchronization therapy and risk of ventricular arrhythmias and clinical outcomes: results from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) trial. Circulation. 2014;130(25):2278–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

The authors, S. Alexiou, P. Georgoulias, G. Angelidis, V. Valotassiou, I. Tsougos, D. Psimadas, V. Lakiotis, A. Kaspiri, D. Alexopoulos, D. Apostolopoulos, and P. Vassilakos, confirm that they have no conflict of interest to declare for this publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece

    Sotiria Alexiou MD, PhD(cand), Velissarios Lakiotis MD, PhD(cand), Agaristi Kaspiri MD, PhD(cand), Dimitrios Apostolopoulos MD, PhD & Pavlos Vassilakos MD, PhD

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Larissa, Mezourlo, 41110, Larissa, Thessaly, Greece

    Sotiria Alexiou MD, PhD(cand), Panagiotis Georgoulias MD, PhD, George Angelidis MD, PhD(cand), Varvara Valotassiou MD, PhD, Ioannis Tsougos MSc, PhD & Dimitrios Psimadas MSc, PhD

  3. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece

    Dimitrios Alexopoulos MD, PhD, FACC, FESC

Authors
  1. Sotiria Alexiou MD, PhD(cand)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Panagiotis Georgoulias MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. George Angelidis MD, PhD(cand)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Varvara Valotassiou MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ioannis Tsougos MSc, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dimitrios Psimadas MSc, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Velissarios Lakiotis MD, PhD(cand)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Agaristi Kaspiri MD, PhD(cand)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Dimitrios Alexopoulos MD, PhD, FACC, FESC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Dimitrios Apostolopoulos MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Pavlos Vassilakos MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sotiria Alexiou MD, PhD(cand).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alexiou, S., Georgoulias, P., Angelidis, G. et al. Myocardial perfusion and left ventricular quantitative parameters obtained using gated myocardial SPECT: Comparison of three software packages. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 25, 911–924 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-016-0730-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-016-0730-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation