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: Gated F-18 FDG PET for assessment of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction using QGS and 4D-MSPECT in patients with heart failure: a comparison with cardiac MRI.
    Author: Li Y, Wang L, Zhao SH, He ZX, Wang DY, Guo F, Fang W, Yang MF.
    Journal: PLoS One; 2014; 9(1):e80227. PubMed ID: 24404123.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]