Why the study?
Does electrocardiographic gated 13N-ammonia PET accurately assess global and regional left ventricular function compared to conventional left ventriculography in patients with coronary artery disease?
Does electrocardiographic gated 13N-ammonia PET accurately assess global and regional left ventricular function compared to conventional left ventriculography in patients with coronary artery disease?
ECG-gated 13N-ammonia PET is a feasible and accurate method for simultaneously assessing global and regional left ventricular function alongside myocardial blood flow in patients with coronary artery disease.
Supports feasibility of combined perfusion-function PET assessment in CAD; hypothesis-generating for replacing LVG pending prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Electrocardiographic gated 13N-ammonia positron emission tomography (PET) enables simultaneous assessment of myocardial blood flow and left ventricular (LV) function. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of gated 13N-ammonia PET for evaluating global and regional LV function in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) in comparison with conventional left ventriculography (LVG). METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-four patients with CAD underwent gated 13N-ammonia PET and LVG. The LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (LVEDV, LVESV) and ejection fraction (LVEF) by gated 13N-ammonia PET were calculated using Cedars-Sinai automated quantitative gated single photon emission computed tomography (QGS) and compared with those obtained by LVG. The regional wall motion (RWM) was visually scored, and compared with that on LVG. There were good correlations between the 2 methods for LVEF, LVEDV and LVESV (R=0.828, R=0.821 and R=0.874 respectively). The RWM assessed by gated 13N-ammonia PET also agreed well with that by LVG (complete agreement was 70.4%, kappa=0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Gated 13N-ammonia PET combined with QGS works reasonably well for the assessment of both global and regional LV function in CAD patients, although additional calibration may be necessary.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kanayama et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: