Electrocardiographically gated blood-pool SPECT and left ventricular function: comparative value of 3 methods for ejection fraction and volume estimation

Abstract

The current major limitation to development of electrocardiographically (ECG) gated blood-pool SPECT (GBPS) for measurement of the left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) and volumes is the lack of availability of clinically validated automatic processing software. Recently, 2 processing software methods for quantification of the LV function have been described. Their LVEFs have been validated separately, but no validation of the LV volume measurement has been reported.

Methods: We compared 3 processing methods for evaluation of the LVEF (n = 29) and volumes (n = 58) in 29 patients: automatic geometric method (GBPS(G)), semiautomatic activity method (GBPS(M)), and 35% maximal activity manual method (GBPS(35%)). The LVEF provided by the ECG gated equilibrium planar left anterior oblique view (planar(LAO)) and the LV volumes provided by LV digital angiography (Rx) were used as gold standards.

Results: Whereas the GBPS(G) and GBPS(M) methods present similar low percentage variabilities, the GBPS(35%) method provided the lowest percentage variabilities for the LVEF and volume measurements (P < 0.04 and P < 0.02, respectively). The LVEF and volume provided by the 3 methods were highly correlated with the gold standard methods (r > 0.98 and r > 0.83, respectively). The LVEFs provided by the GBPS(35%) and GBPS(M) methods are similar and higher than those of the GBPS(G) method and planar(LAO) method, respectively (P < 0.0001). For the LVEF, there is no correlation between the average and paired absolute difference for the 3 GBPS methods against the planar(LAO) method, and the limits of agreement are relatively large. LV volumes are lower when calculated with the GBPS(M), GBPS(G), and Rx methods (P < 0.0001). However, the GBPS(35%) and Rx methods provide LV volumes that are similar. There is no linear correlation between the average and the paired absolute difference of volumes calculated with the GBPS(G) and GBPS(35%) methods against Rx LV volumes. However, a moderate linear correlation was found with the GBPS(M) method (r = 0.6; P = 0.0001). The 95% limits of agreement between the Rx LV volumes and the 3 GBPS methods are relatively large.

Conclusion: GBPS is a simple, highly reproducible, and accurate technique for the LVEF and volume measurement. The reported findings should be considered when comparing results of different methods (GBPS vs. planar(LAO) LVEF; GBPS vs. Rx volume) and results of different GBPS processing methods.