Key result
Gated FDG PET/CT correlates with CMR but underestimates LVEDV by ~28 mL using QGS.
Why the study?
Ventricular function is a powerful predictor of survival in patients with heart failure, yet studies characterizing gated F-18 FDG PET for assessing cardiac function are rare.
Cross-Sectional (n=89)
Single-blind
No
Gated FDG PET correlates well with MRI yet shows bias in HF; leaves open interchangeability pending standardized validation studies.
PURPOSE: Ventricular function is a powerful predictor of survival in patients with heart failure (HF). However, studies characterizing gated F-18 FDG PET for the assessment of the cardiac function are rare. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare gated F-18 FDG PET and cardiac MRI for the assessment of ventricular volume and ejection fraction (EF) in patients with HF. METHODS: Eighty-nine patients with diagnosed HF who underwent both gated F-18 FDG PET/CT and cardiac MRI within 3 days were included in the analysis. Left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), and EF were obtained from gated F-18 FDG PET/CT using the Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) and 4D-MSPECT software. RESULTS: LV EDV and LV ESV measured by QGS were significantly lower than those measured by cardiac MRI (both P<0.0001). In contrast, the corresponding values for LV EDV for 4D-MSPECT were comparable, and LV ESV was underestimated with borderline significance compared with cardiac MRI (P = 0.047). LV EF measured by QGS and cardiac MRI showed no significant differences, whereas the corresponding values for 4D-MSPECT were lower than for cardiac MRI (P<0.0001). The correlations of LV EDV, LV ESV, and LV EF between gated F-18 FDG PET/CT and cardiac MRI were excellent for both QGS (r = 0.92, 0.92, and 0.76, respectively) and 4D-MSPECT (r = 0.93, 0.94, and 0.75, respectively). However, Bland-Altman analysis revealed a significant systemic error, where LV EDV (-27.9±37.0 mL) and ESV (-18.6±33.8 mL) were underestimated by QGS. CONCLUSION: Despite the observation that gated F-18 FDG PET/CT were well correlated with cardiac MRI for assessing LV function, variation was observed between the two imaging modalities, and so these imaging techniques should not be used interchangeably.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2014) conducted a cross-sectional in Heart Failure (n=89). Gated F-18 FDG PET/CT (using QGS and 4D-MSPECT software) vs. Cardiac MRI was evaluated on Left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV, mL) measured by QGS vs Cardiac MRI (MD -27.9 mL, p=<0.0001). Gated F-18 FDG PET/CT correlated well with cardiac MRI for LV function (r=0.75-0.94), but QGS underestimated LVEDV (-27.9 mL, P<0.0001) and 4D-MSPECT underestimated LVEF (-3.9%, P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: