Why the study?
Does GSPECT accurately measure LVEF compared to RNVG in subjects undergoing cardiac imaging?
Does GSPECT accurately measure LVEF compared to RNVG in subjects undergoing cardiac imaging?
Left ventricular ejection fractions calculated using the QGS algorithm from GSPECT studies show significant disparity compared to RNVG and are inadequate for clinical practice.
GSPECT LVEF measurements warrant clinical caution given wide intervals; leaves open need for validation against reference standards in prospective cohorts.
Gated SPECT (GSPECT) was evaluated for the measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by comparing with equilibrium gated radionuclide ventriculography (RNVG). A total of 99 subjects underwent GSPECT and RNVG imaging. All studies were acquired in list mode with GSPECT studies processed to give 16- and 8-frames per R-R interval, and RNVG studies 24 frames per R-R interval. The Cedars-Sinai QGS software was used to calculate ejection fraction from GSPECT studies. RNVG studies were processed using a manually drawn single region of interest technique. Comparison of LVEF from GSPECT with RNVG yielded correlation coefficients of 0.82 and 0.81 for 16- and 8-frame GSPECT studies respectively. The mean 95% prediction interval was 33 +/- 11 percentage points for both 16- and 8-frame studies, indicating a great disparity between predicted ejection fraction values from GSPECT and actual RNVG values. Subgroup analysis of 29 patients with pathological Q-wave evidence of myocardial infarction demonstrated a poorer correlation coefficient of r = 0.69. Subgroup analysis of 32 patients with end-diastolic volumes < 100 ml demonstrated a poorer correlation coefficient of r = 0.32. Ejection fractions calculated from 16- and 8-frame studies showed a correlation of 0.99 with a mean 95% prediction interval of 8.7 +/- 0.04 percentage points. The 8-frame studies underestimated LVEF by 3.6 +/- 2.3% compared to the 16-frame studies. In conclusion, left ventricular ejection fractions calculated using the QGS algorithm from GSPECT studies are inadequate for use in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wright et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: