当前位置： SCI文献检索 > NUCLEAR MEDICINE COMMUNICATIONS期刊下所有文献 > Comparative values of gated blood-pool SPECT and CMR for ejection fraction and volume estimation.

Comparative values of gated blood-pool SPECT and CMR for ejection fraction and volume estimation.

Abstract：

OBJECTIVE:Gated blood-pool single-photon emission computed tomography (GBPS) was compared with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) for the measurement of left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) ejection fractions (EF) and volumes [end-diastolic volume (EDV) or end-systolic volume (ESV)] in a mixed population. METHODS:Thirty patients (70% men; mean age: 61±14 years) referred for various symptoms or heart diseases, predominantly ischemic, were included. GBPS data were analyzed using segmentation software described earlier based on the watershed algorithm. CMR images were acquired for both ventricles at the same time using a steady-state-free precession sequence and short-axis views. No compensation for papillary muscles was used. LVEF and RVEF and volumes were assessed with GBPS and CMR and were compared. RESULTS:LVEF and volumes were correlated (P<0.001). The difference in LVEF between GBPS and CMR was not significant (P=0.063). The limits of agreement were close for LVEF (-11 to 15%) and wider for LV volumes (-82 to 11 ml for EDV and -52 to 15 ml for ESV), with higher volume values obtained with CMR (mean differences of 36±24 ml for EDV and 19±17 ml for ESV). The RVEF and volumes assessed by GBPS and CMR were correlated (P<0.001). The difference in RVESV between GBPS or CMR was not significant (P=0.136). The limits of agreement were relatively close for all RV parameters (-15 to 8% for EF; -44 to 22 ml for EDV, and -25 to 21 ml for ESV). In 24 patients without valvulopathy or shunt, the difference between LV stroke volume and RV stroke volume was lower with GBPS than with CMR (9±14 ml and 18±13 ml, respectively, with P=0.027). CONCLUSION:GBPS is a simple and widely available technique that can assess both LVEF and RVEF, and volumes with slight differences compared with CMR.

journal_name

Nucl Med Commun

journal_title

Nuclear medicine communications

authors

Sibille L,Bouallegue FB,Bourdon A,Micheau A,Vernhet-Kovacsik H,Mariano-Goulart D

doi

10.1097/MNM.0b013e32834155f1

subject

Has Abstract

pub_date

2011-02-01 00:00:00

pages

121-8

issue

eissn

0143-3636

issn

1473-5628

journal_volume

pub_type

临床试验,杂志文章

在线工具

Comparative values of gated blood-pool SPECT and CMR for ejection fraction and volume estimation.