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.
The goal of this study was to validate the accuracy of the Emory Cardiac Tool Box (ECTB) in assessing left ventricular end-diastolic or end-systolic volume (EDV, ESV) and ejection fraction (LVEF) from gated (99m)Tc-methoxyisobutylisonitrile ((99m)Tc-MIBI) SPECT using cardiac MRI (cMRI) as a reference. Furthermore, software-specific characteristics of ECTB were analyzed in comparison with 4D-MSPECT and Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) results (all relative to cMRI).


METHODS
Seventy patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease were examined using gated (99m)Tc-MIBI SPECT (8 gates/cardiac cycle) 60 min after tracer injection at rest. EDV, ESV, and LVEF were calculated from gated (99m)Tc-MIBI SPECT using ECTB, 4D-MSPECT, and QGS. Directly before or after gated SPECT, cMRI (20 gates/cardiac cycle) was performed as a reference. EDV, ESV, and LVEF were calculated using Simpson's rule.


RESULTS
Correlation between results of gated (99m)Tc-MIBI SPECT and cMRI was high for EDV (R = 0.90 [ECTB], R = 0.88 [4D-MSPECT], R = 0.92 [QGS]), ESV (R = 0.94 [ECTB], R = 0.96 [4D-MSPECT], R = 0.96 [QGS]), and LVEF (R = 0.85 [ECTB], R = 0.87 [4D-MSPECT], R = 0.89 [QGS]). EDV (ECTB) did not differ significantly from cMRI, whereas 4D-MSPECT and QGS underestimated EDV significantly compared with cMRI (mean +/- SD: 131 +/- 43 mL [ECTB], 127 +/- 42 mL [4D-MSPECT], 120 +/- 38 mL [QGS], 137 +/- 36 mL [cMRI]). For ESV, only ECTB yielded values that were significantly lower than cMRI. For LVEF, ECTB and 4D-MSPECT values did not differ significantly from cMRI, whereas QGS values were significantly lower than cMRI (mean +/- SD: 62.7% +/- 13.7% [ECTB], 59.0% +/- 12.7% [4DM-SPECT], 53.2% +/- 11.5% [QGS], 60.6% +/- 13.9% [cMRI]).


CONCLUSIONS
EDV, ESV, and LVEF as determined by ECTB, 4D-MSPECT, and QGS from gated (99m)Tc-MIBI SPECT agree over a wide range of clinically relevant values with cMRI. Nevertheless, any algorithm-inherent over- or underestimation of volumes and LVEF should be accounted for and an interchangeable use of different software packages should be avoided.
Schaefer
Wolfgang M
WM
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Aachen University of Technology, Germany. wschaefer@ukaachen.de
Lipke
Claudia S A
CS
Standke
Dirk
D
Kühl
Harald P
HP
Nowak
Bernd
B
Kaiser
Hans-Juergen
HJ
Koch
Karl-Christian
KC
Buell
Udalrich
U
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000465:Algorithms; D003324:Coronary Artery Disease / Q000150:complications / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D005260:Female; D015637:Gated Blood-Pool Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D007089:Image Enhancement / Q000379:methods; D007090:Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional / Q000379:methods*; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D012984:Software; D012986:Software Validation; D013318:Stroke Volume; D017256:Technetium Tc 99m Sestamibi; D015899:Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon / Q000379:methods; D018487:Ventricular Dysfunction, Left / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000209:etiology
D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals; D017256:Technetium Tc 99m Sestamibi