Key result
GSPECT, ECHO, and CMRI correlate strongly for LVEF but show poor agreement for LV volumes.
Cross-Sectional (n=21)
p-value: p=<0.01
LVEF obtained from GSPECT, ECHO, and CMRI can be used interchangeably, but care should be taken when comparing LV volumes due to lack of agreement between the modalities.
LVEF may be used interchangeably across modalities in care; leaves open volume standardization for research.
stolic volume (EDV) and endtsystolic volume (ESV).GSPECT offers the potential advantage of combint t ing information on myocardial function and perfusion without any extra cost, discomfort and radiation risk to patient.4t7 According to previously published studies, GSPECT correlates well with both ECHO and CMRI with ret t spect to LVEF, LV volumes and wall motion. 1,4t19 The aim of this prospective study was to analyze the cont t cordance between LVEF, EDV and ESV values derived from GSPECT, ECHO, and CMRI in the same group of patients.BACKGROUND: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) can be determined non-invasively by two-dimensional echocardiography (ECHO), gated single photon emission computed tomography (GSPECT) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI).This study was designed to analyze the concordance between LVEF, EDV and ESV values derived from ECHO, GSPECT and CMRI.METHODS: ECHO, GSPECT and CMRI were performed in a group of 21 patients with suspected coronary artery disease.LVEF, EDV and ESV values were calculated. RESULTS:The mean LVEF measured with GSPECT, ECHO and CMRI were 55.9±17.8%,55.7±16.4% and 56.4±15.7%,respectively.The mean EDV measured with GSPECT, ECHO and CMRI were 109.2±42.4mL, 127.5±42.2mL and 91.1±38.0mL, respectively.The mean ESV measured with GSPECT, ECHO and CMRI were 54.2±41.2mL, 59.9±37.6 mL and 41.8±26.9mL, respectively.The results of linear regression analysis showed very good correlation between LVEF and ESV values derived from GSPECT, ECHO and CMRI (r=0.91,r=0.92, r=0.97 for LVEF and r=0.86, r=0.91, r=0.91 for ESV, P<0.01).Good correlations were found between EDV values obtained from GSPECT, ECHO and CMRI (r=0.71,r=0.68, r=0.73,P<0.01).Agreement between these techniques in LVEF values was also good, but not in LV volumes, according to Bland-Altman plots.CONCLUSIONS: This study showed good overall correlations between LVEF, EDV and ESV values derived from GSPECT, ECHO and CMRI.LVEF obtained from any of these three imaging modalities could be used inter-changeably.However, care should be taken in comparing LV volumes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Demir et al. (2007) conducted a cross-sectional in Suspected coronary artery disease (n=21). GSPECT, ECHO, and CMRI was evaluated on Concordance between LVEF, EDV and ESV values (p=<0.01). GSPECT, ECHO, and CMRI showed very good correlation for LVEF (r=0.91-0.97, P<0.01), allowing interchangeable use, but agreement for LV volumes was poor.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: