Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Medical Imaging and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

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

Fredrik Hedeer1, John Palmer2, Håkan Arheden1 and Martin Ugander1*

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Clinical Physiology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden

2 Department of Radiation Physics, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Medical Imaging 2010, 10:10  doi:10.1186/1471-2342-10-10

Published: 25 May 2010

Abstract

Background

We sought to compare quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by different gated myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) programs with each other and to magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.

Methods

N = 100 patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease were examined at rest with 99 mTc-tetrofosmin gated MPS and cardiac MR imaging. Left ventricular end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV) and ejection fraction (EF) were obtained by analysing gated MPS data with four different programs: Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS), GE MyoMetrix, Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb) and Exini heart.

Results

All programs showed a mean bias compared to MR imaging of approximately -30% for EDV (-22 to -34%, p < 0.001 for all), ESV (-12 to -37%, p < 0.001 for ECTb, p < 0.05 for Exini, p = ns for QGS and MyoMetrix) and SV (-21 to -41%, p < 0.001 for all). Mean bias ± 2 SD for EF (% of EF) was -9 ± 27% (p < 0.01), 6 ± 29% (p = ns), 15 ± 27% (p < 0.001) and 0 ± 28% (p = ns) for QGS, ECTb, MyoMetrix, and Exini, respectively.

Conclusions

Gated MPS, systematically underestimates left ventricular volumes by approximately 30% and shows a high variability, especially for ESV. For EF, accuracy was better, with a mean bias between -15 and 6% of EF. It may be of value to take this into consideration when determining absolute values of LV volumes and EF in a clinical setting.