Comparison of digital and radionuclide left ventriculography in patients at risk from conventional left ventriculography.

In this study, two alternative methods of assessing left ventricular (LV) sequential wall motion and ejection fraction (EF) were used in 28 consecutive patients in whom an unstable clinical condition (unstable angina pectoris or severe LV dysfunction) precluded the use of high volume contrast cineventriculography. A new approach, direct small volume contrast digital ventriculography, was compared to radionuclide blood pool ventriculography considered as a "standard" and reliable technique. The qualitative analysis of regional LV contraction by three independent observers showed a complete agreement in 64% of segments studied in the left anterior oblique (LAO) projection and in 69% in the right anterior oblique (RAO) projection; a one-degree disagreement was observed in 13% and 19% respectively, and a discrepancy of two degrees or more in 23% and 12% respectively. Left ventricular ejection fraction calculated from both techniques correlated relatively well (r = 0.82). The radionuclide examination still remains the fastest, easiest and most objective way to appraise global LV function in high risk patients. However, optimal analysis of segmental wall motion requires invasive digital contrast left ventriculography. In future, a more general use of non-ionic contrast media including their intravenous injection and the advent of portable digital devices should permit their widespread use as a safe, rapid and reliable procedure even in the intensive care unit.