A correlative study comparing current different methods of calculating left ventricular ejection fraction

Abstract

Background: Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) is a major determinant of survival in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Comparative accuracy of numerous modalities in calculating EF is not well investigated.

Method: We compared EF as calculated by rest and post-stress Cedars automated quantitative gated SPECT (AQGS), rest and post-stress semi-automatically processed gated SPECT (MQGS), echocardiography and contrast ventriculography (LVG) to those determined by rest and post-stress cavity-to-myocardium ratio (CMR) in 109 patients. Gated SPECT was performed based on a 2-day protocol using Tc-MIBI.

Results: Mean EF in LVG, echo, post-stress CMR, rest CMR, post-stress AQGS, rest AQGS, post-stress MQGS and rest MQGS were 41.8%+/-12.1, 44.8%+/-11.8, 38.1%+/-10.7, 35.7%+/-12.1, 44.5%+/-15.1, 46.9%+/-14.7, 40.1%+/-14.3 and 43.5%+/-14.3 respectively. Although significant differences were observed between some of these methods, good and excellent linear correlations were present among values (all Pearson correlations >0.63). Considering LVG as the 'gold standard', we defined two groups: EF <35% (class 1) and >35% (class 2). Discriminant analysis showed that SPECT has the ability to predict patients' classes. In 4/18 of patients with normal SPECT (on both visual and quantitative analyses, SSS <4), EF on QGS showed a significant decrease on post-stress compared with rest.

Conclusion: There is a good correlation in calculating EF by LVG, QGS and echocardiography, regardless of EF value. Whenever QGS is impossible, CMR is a reliable indirect indicator of EF. Gating of both phases (and when impossible, CMR of both phases) has an additional value in diagnosis of CAD.