Department of Radiological Technology, Koga General Hospital, Miyazaki, Japan.
Ann Nucl Med. 2012 Feb;26(2):147-63. doi: 10.1007/s12149-011-0546-3. Epub 2011 Nov 12.
The aim is to compare and evaluate the agreement of quantification of left ventricular functional parameters obtained by two different methods, (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin gated myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR).
Ten healthy male volunteers participated. Gated MPS data were acquired using 32 frames, which were also combined into 16- and 8-frame data set for the investigation. Gated CMR data were acquired using 8, 16 and 32-frame for the different sets. All examinations were conducted in resting and at exercise conditions. Quantitative measurements of end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), peak ejection rate (PER), peak filling rate (PFR) and time to peak filling (TTPF) were done for each study, respectively. Finally, we evaluated the concordance of parameters between gated MPS and gated CMR by % difference and Bland-Altman plot analysis.
LVEF showed favorable concordance in both rest and exercise conditions (% differences were around 10%). PER, PFR and TTPF also showed good concordances in rest conditions, under 32-frame gated collections particularly (% differences were around 10%). In exercise conditions, although the concordances were relatively good, certain variances were noted (% differences were around 20-25%). Regarding left ventricular volumes, the concordance were worse in both conditions (% differences were around 30-40%).
In quantifying of left ventricular function parameter, gated CMR provides similar quantitative values comparing with gated MPS except for ventricular volumes in rest conditions. In contrast, there were certain variations except for LVEF in exercised examinations. When we follow patients by the same cardiac parameters with CMR and MPS, using parameters across the two modalities proved to be possible under rest condition. However, it is limited at exercise condition.
比较和评估两种不同方法(99m)Tc-四氮茂门控心肌灌注 SPECT(MPS)和心脏磁共振成像(CMR)定量左心室功能参数的一致性。
10 名健康男性志愿者参与了该研究。门控 MPS 数据使用 32 帧采集,也可以将其组合为 16 帧和 8 帧数据集进行研究。门控 CMR 数据使用 8、16 和 32 帧采集。所有检查均在静息和运动状态下进行。分别对每个研究进行舒张末期容积(EDV)、收缩末期容积(ESV)、左心室射血分数(LVEF)、峰值射血率(PER)、峰值充盈率(PFR)和峰值充盈时间(TTPF)的定量测量。最后,通过%差异和 Bland-Altman 图分析评估门控 MPS 和门控 CMR 之间参数的一致性。
在静息和运动状态下,LVEF 具有良好的一致性(%差异约为 10%)。PER、PFR 和 TTPF 在静息状态下,特别是在 32 帧门控采集下,也具有良好的一致性(%差异约为 10%)。在运动状态下,尽管一致性较好,但也存在一定差异(%差异约为 20-25%)。对于左心室容积,在两种状态下,一致性较差(%差异约为 30-40%)。
在定量左心室功能参数方面,门控 CMR 与门控 MPS 相比,提供了相似的定量值,除了静息状态下的心室容积。相反,在运动检查中,除了 LVEF 之外,还有一定的变化。当我们用 CMR 和 MPS 相同的心脏参数对患者进行随访时,在静息状态下,使用两种模态的参数是可行的。但是,在运动状态下是有限的。