Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between ECTb and QGS for assessment of left ventricular function from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT

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

Abstract

Background

The most widely distributed software packages to compute left ventricular (LV) volume and ejection fraction (EF) from gated perfusion tomograms are QGS and the Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb). Because LV modeling and time sampling differ between the algorithms, it is necessary to document relationships between values produced by them and to establish normal limits individually for each software package in order to interpret results obtained for individual patients.

Methods and Results

Gated single photon emission computed tomography technetium 99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion studies were collected and analyzed for 246 patients evaluated for coronary artery disease. QGS and ECTb values of ejection fraction (EF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), and end-systolic volume were found to correlate linearly (r = 0.90, 0.91, and 0.94, respectively), but EF and EDV were significantly lower for QGS than with ECTb (53% ± 13% vs 61% ± 13 and 102 ± 45 mL vs 114 ± 50 mL, respectively). To compare calculations for healthy subjects between the two software packages, data were also selected for 50 other patients at low likelihood for coronary artery disease, for whom EF and EDV were significantly lower for QGS compared with ECTb (62% ± 9% vs 67% ± 8% and 84 ± 26 mL vs 105 ± 33 mL, respectively). The ECTb lower limit was 51% for EF and the upper limits were 171 mL for EDV and 59 mL/m2 for mass-indexed EDV, compared with limits of 44%, 137 mL, and 47 mL/m2 for QGS.

Conclusions

Although correlations were strong between the two methods of computing LV functional values, statistical scatter was substantial and significant biases and trends observed. Therefore, when both software packages are used at the same site, it will be important to take these differences into consideration and to apply normal limits specific to each set of algorithms.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Train Van KF, Areeda J, Garcia EV, Cooke CD, Maddahi J, Kiat H, et al. Quantitative same-day rest-stress technetium-99m sestamibi SPECT: definition and validation of stress normal limits and criteria for abnormality. J Nucl Med 1993;34: 1494–502.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Iskandrian AS, Hakki AH, Goel IP, Mundth ED, Kane-Marsch SA, Schenk CL. The use of rest and exercise radionuclide ventriculography in risk stratification in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Am Heart J 1985;110:864–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fuster V, Gersh BJ, Giuliani ER, Tajik AJ, Brandenburg RO, Frye RL. The natural history of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol 1981;47:525–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Germano G, Kiat H, Kavanagh PB, Mariel M, Mazzanti M, Su HT, et al. Automatic quantification of ejection fraction from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med 1995;36: 2138–47.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Germano G, Erel J, Lewin H, Kavanagh PB, Berrman DS. Automatic quantitation of regional myocardial wall motion and thickening from gated technetium-99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:1360–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Faber TL, Cooke DC, Folks RD, Vansant JP, Nichols KJ, DePuey EG, et al. Left ventricular function from gated SPECT perfusion images: an integrated method. J Nucl Med 1999;40: 650–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Germano G, Nichols K, Cullom J, Faber T, Cooke D. Gated perfusion SPECT. technical considerations. In: DePuey EG, Berman DS, Garcia EV, editors. Cardiac SPECT, 2nd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia; 2001. p. 103–15.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nichols K, Lefkowitz D, Faber T, Folks R, Cooke D, Garcia EV, et al. Echocardiographic validation of gated SPECT ventricular function measurements. J Nucl Med 2000;41: 1308–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. DePuey EG, Nichols KJ, Slowikowski JS, Scarpa WJ, Smith C, Melancon S. Fast stress and rest acquisitions for technetium-99m-sestamibi separate-day SPECT. J Nucl Med 1995;36:569–74.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sharir T, Germano G, Kavanagh PB, Lai S, Cohen I, Lewin HC, 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; 100:1035–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rozanski A, Nichols K, Yao SS, Malhotra S, Cohen R, DePuey EG. Development and application of normal limits for left ventricular ejection fraction and volume measurements from Tc-99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion gated SPECT. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1445–50.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ababneh AA, Sciacca RR, Kim B, Bergmann SR. Normal limits for left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes estimated with gated myocardial perfusion imaging in subjects with normal exercise tests: influence of tracer, gender and acquisition camera. J Nucl Cardiol 2000;7:661–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Crawford CR. CT filtration aliasing artifacts. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1991;10:99–102.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kaul S, Wismer GL, Brady TJ, Johnston DL, Weyman AE, Okada RD, et al. Measurement of normal left heart dimensions using optimally oriented MR images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986;146:75–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cooke CD, Garcia EV, Cullom SJ, Faber TL, Pettigrew RI. 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;35:1185–92.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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;4:472–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nichols K, DePuey EG, Friedman MI, Rozanski A. Do patient data ever exceed the partial volume limit? J Nucl Cardiol 1998; 5:484–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gordon EP, Schnittger I, Fitzgerald PJ, Williams P, Popp RL. Reproducibility of left ventricular volumes by two-dimensional echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1983;2:506–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Semelka RC, Tomei E, Wagner S, Mayo J, Caputo G, O’Sullivan M, et al. Normal left ventricular dimensions and function: interstudy reproducibility of measurements with cine MR imaging. Radiology 1990;174:763–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kennedy JW, Baxley WA, Figley MM, Dodge Blackman, J. Quantitative angiocardiography. I. The normal left ventricle in man. Circulation 1966;34:272–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Feiring AJ, Rumberg JA, Reiter SJ, Collins SM, Skorton DJ, Rees M, et al. Sectional and segmental variability of left ventricular function: experimental and clinical studies using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1988;12: 415–25.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ford PV, Chatziioannou SN, Moore WH, Dhekne RD. Overestimation of the LVEF by quantitative gated SPECT in simulated left ventricles. J Nucl Med 2001;42:454–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cardiology, Columbia University, 622 W 168th St, PH9-993B, 10032, New York, NY

    Kenneth Nichols & Steven R. Bergmann

  2. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga

    Cesar A. Santana, Russell Folks, Elizabeth Krawczynska, C. David Cooke, Tracy L. Faber & Ernest V. Garcia

Authors
  1. Kenneth Nichols
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cesar A. Santana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Russell Folks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elizabeth Krawczynska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. David Cooke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tracy L. Faber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Steven R. Bergmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ernest V. Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth Nichols.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nichols, K., Santana, C.A., Folks, R. et al. Comparison between ECTb and QGS for assessment of left ventricular function from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 9, 285–293 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1067/mnc.2002.121449

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1067/mnc.2002.121449

Key Words

Search

Navigation