Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 377–384 | Cite as

Variability of serial same-day left ventricular ejection fraction using quantitative gated spect

  • Enrique VallejoEmail author
  • Hugo Chaya
  • Gerardo Plancarte
  • Diana Victoria
  • David Bialostozky



The accuracy of quantitative gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (QGS) and the potential limitations for estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have been extensively evaluated. However, few studies have focused on the serial variability of QGS. This study was conducted to assess the serial variability of QGS for determination of LVEF between 2 sequential technetium 99m sestamibi- gated SPECT acquisitions at rest in both healthy and unhealthy subjects.

Methods and Results

The study population consisted of 2 groups: group I included 21 volunteers with a low likelihood of CAD, and group II included 22 consecutive patients with documented CAD. Both groups underwent serial SPECT imaging. The overall correlation between sequential images was high (r = 0.94, SEE = 5.3%), and the mean serial variability of LVEF was 5.15% ± 3.51%. Serial variability was lower for images with high counts (3.45% ± 3.23%) than for images with low counts (6.85% ± 3.77%). The mean serial variability was not different between normal and abnormal high- dose images (3.0% ± 1.56% vs 3.9% ± 2.77%). However, mean serial variability for images derived from abnormal low- dose images was significantly greater than that derived from normal low- dose images (9.6% ± 2.22% vs 3.1% ± 2.12%, P < .05).


Although QGS is an efficacious method to approximate LVEF values and is extremely valuable for incremental risk stratification of patients with coronary artery disease, it has significant variability in the estimation of LVEF on serial images. This should be taken into account when used for serial evaluation of LVEF.

Key Words

Left ventricular ejection fraction quantitative gated single photon emission computed tomography serial variability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Germano G, Kiat H, Kavanagh PB, Moriel M, Mazzanti M, Su H, et al. Automatic quantification of ejection fraction from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med 1995;36:2138–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    He ZX, Cwajg E, Preslar JS, Mahmarian JJ, Verani MS. Accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction determined by gated myocardial perfusion SPECT with Tl-201 and Tc-99m sestamibi: comparison with first-pass radionuclide angiography. J Nucl Cardiol 1999;6:412–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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-labeled tetrofosmin: a comparison with cine magnetic resonance imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 1998;6:3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Manrique A, Faraggi M, Vera P, Vilain D, Lebtahi R, Cribier A, et al. 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: 805–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vera P, Manrique A, Pontvianne V, Hitzel A, Koning R, Cribier A. Thallium-gated SPECT in patients with major myocardial infarction: effect of filtering and zooming in comparison with equilibrium imaging and left ventriculography. J Nucl Med 1999;40:513–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vallejo E, Dione DP, Sinusas AJ, Wackers FJTh. Assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction with quantitative gated SPECT: accuracy and correlation with first-pass radionuclide angiography. J Nucl Cardiol 2000;7:461–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Achtert AD, King MA, Dahlberg ST, Hendrick P, LaCroix KJ, Tsui BMW. An investigation of the estimation of ejection fractions and cardiac volumes by quantitative gated SPECT software package in simulated gated SPECT images. J Nucl Cardiol 1998;5:144–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vallejo E, Dione DP, Bruni WL, Constable RT, Borek PP, Soares JP, 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; 41:874–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Engl J Med 1979;300:1350–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nichols K, Yao SS, Kamran M, Faber T, Cooke D, DePuey EG. Clinical impact of arrhythmias on gated SPECT cardiac myocardial perfusion and function assessment. J Nucl Cardiol 2001;8:19–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berman D, Germano G, Lewin H, Kang X, Kavanagh P, Tapnio P, et al. Comparison of post-stress ejection fraction and relative left ventricular volumes by automatic analysis of gated myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography acquired in the supine and prone positions. J Nucl Cardiol 1998;5:40–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Itti E, Rosso J, Damien P, Auffret M, Thirion JP, Meignan M. Assessment of ejection fraction with Tl-201 gated SPECT in myocardial infarction: precision in a rest-redistribution study and accuracy versus planar angiography. J Nucl Cardiol 2001;8:31–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumita S, Cho K, Nahajo H, Toba M, Kijima T, Mzumura S, et al. Serial assessment of left ventricular function during dobutamine stress by means of electrocardiography-gated myocardial SPECT: combination with dual-isotope myocardial perfusion SPECT for detection of ischemic heart disease. J Nucl Cardiol 2001;8:152–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hyun IY, Kwan J, Park KS, Lee WH. Reproducibility of Tl-201 and Tc-99m sestamibi gated myocardial perfusion SPECT measurement of myocardial function. J Nucl Cardiol 2001;8:182–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson L, Verdesca S, Aude WY, Xavier R, Nott L, Campanella MW. Postischemic stunning can affect left ventricular ejection fraction and regional wall motion on post-stress gated sestamibi tomograms. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 30:1641–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wackers FJTh, Berger H, Johnstone D, Goldman L, Reduto LA, Langou RA, et al. Multiple gated cardiac blood pool imaging for left ventricular ejection fraction: validation of the technique and assessment of variability. Am J Cardiol 1979;43:1159–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sinusas AJ, Bergin JD, Edwards NC, Watson DD, Ruiz M, Makuch RW, et al. Redistribution of 99mTc-sestamibi and 201Tl in the presence of severe coronary artery stenosis. Circulation 1994;89:2332–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrique Vallejo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hugo Chaya
    • 1
  • Gerardo Plancarte
    • 1
  • Diana Victoria
    • 1
  • David Bialostozky
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuclear Cardiology DepartmentInstituto Nacional de Cardioloǵa “Ignacio Chávez”México DFMexico

Personalised recommendations