These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Validation of QGS and 4D-MSPECT for quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction from gated 18F-FDG PET: comparison with cardiac MRI.
    Author: Schaefer WM, Lipke CS, Nowak B, Kaiser HJ, Reinartz P, Buecker A, Krombach GA, Buell U, Kühl HP.
    Journal: J Nucl Med; 2004 Jan; 45(1):74-9. PubMed ID: 14734676.
    Abstract:
    UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to validate Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) and 4D-MSPECT for assessing left ventricular end-diastolic and systolic volumes (EDV and ESV, respectively) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from gated (18)F-FDG PET. METHODS: Forty-four patients with severe coronary artery disease were examined with gated (18)F-FDG PET (8 gates per cardiac cycle). EDV, ESV, and LVEF were calculated from gated (18)F-FDG PET using QGS and 4D-MSPECT. Within 2 d (median), cardiovascular cine MRI (cMRI) (20 gates per cardiac cycle) was done as a reference. RESULTS: QGS failed to accurately detect myocardial borders in 1 patient; 4D-MSPECT, in 2 patients. For the remaining 42 patients, correlation between the results of gated (18)F-FDG PET and cMRI was high for EDV (R = 0.94 for QGS and 0.94 for 4D-MSPECT), ESV (R = 0.95 for QGS and 0.95 for 4D-MSPECT), and LVEF (R = 0.94 for QGS and 0.90 for 4D-MSPECT). QGS significantly (P < 0.0001) underestimated LVEF, whereas no other parameter differed significantly between gated (18)F-FDG PET and cMRI for either algorithm. CONCLUSION: Despite small systematic differences that, among other aspects, limit interchangeability, agreement between gated (18)F-FDG PET and cMRI is good across a wide range of clinically relevant volumes and LVEF values assessed by QGS and 4D-MSPECT.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]