SNM Annual Meeting Abstracts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     



J Nucl Med. 2008; 49 (Supplement 1):73P
This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Menezes, L.
Right arrow Articles by Ell, P.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Menezes, L.
Right arrow Articles by Ell, P.

Cardiovascular: Clinical Science

Update on Cardiac PET

Assessment of left ventricular function at rest using Rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion PET: Comparison of 4 software algorithms with simultaneous 64-slice coronary CT angiography

Leon Menezes1, Ashley Groves1, Elizabeth Prvulovich1, John Dickson1, Vineet Prakash1, Raymondo Endozo1, Manu Shastry1, Irfan Kayani1, Jamshed Bomanji1 and Peter Ell1

1 Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom

290

Objectives: Left ventricular (LV) function is prognostically important in cardiac patients. Our aim was to validate different algorithms' measurement of LV function with Rubidium-82 PET, using CT acquired simultaneously on hybrid imaging.

Methods: Fifty patients (33 men, 17 women, mean age 58.9, SD 12 years) referred for evaluation of coronary artery disease underwent Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET and 64-slice CT coronary angiography simultaneously on hybrid PET/CT. LV Ejection Fraction (LVEF), End Systolic Volume (ESV) and End Diastolic Volume (EDV) from quantitative gated PET at rest, calculated using QGS, Emory Cardiac Toolbox, Myometrix, and CardIQ Physio software were compared with data from CT. The results were analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficient, paired t test and Bland Altman analysis.

Results: The correlation coefficients for LVEF between PET and CT were 0.52, 0.54, 0.62 and 0.71 for QGS, ECT, Myometrix, and CardIQ Physio respectively. The correlation coefficients for EDV were 0.75, 0.74, 0.83, and 0.74, respectively.The correlation coefficients for ESV were 0.77, 0.74, 0.86, and 0.82, respectively. Bland Altman analysis revealed a bias towards underestimating EDV by all algorithms with mean differences of -32.3, -34.8, -42.6 and -35.7 ml, respectively. The limits of agreement (mean bias +/- 2SD) for LVEF were 8.5 +21.4, 12.9 +21.4, 3.5 +19.3, 5.6 +17.5% respectively.

Conclusions: CardIQ Physio measured LVEF on myocardial perfusion Rb-82 PET agrees best with LVEF as determined by 64-slice Cardiac CT angiography. The wide limits of agreement between the algorithms mean that they are not interchangeable.





This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Menezes, L.
Right arrow Articles by Ell, P.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Menezes, L.
Right arrow Articles by Ell, P.