Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Mar;33(3):E56-62.
doi: 10.1002/clc.20577.

Left ventricular ejection fraction assessment by Tl-201 gated SPECT: a comparison with echocardiography

David Harpaz  1 , Arik Asman, Rafael Kuperstein, Mona Boaz, Pierre Chouraqui
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Left ventricular ejection fraction assessment by Tl-201 gated SPECT: a comparison with echocardiography

David Harpaz et al. Clin Cardiol. 2010 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Few studies including only a limited number of patients have compared left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessed by 2-dimensional echocardiography (2-DE) and electrocardiography-gated Tl-201 single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).

Hypothesis: LVEF assessment by Tl-201 gated spect is comparable with LVEF assessed by 2-DE in two different echocardiographic laboratories.

Material and methods: Patients (n = 402) underwent Tl-201 gated SPECT in the same laboratory and 2-DE in 2 different laboratories. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the study laboratory: group 1, at the tertiary hospital and group 2, at a community laboratory.

Results: LVEF evaluations were similar (mean LVEF: 50.73% +/- 11.67% by 2-DE vs 50.11% +/- 11.41% by SPECT in group 1 and 57.27% +/- 7.44% by 2-DE vs 57.41% +/- 8.37% by SPECT in group 2). All LVEF measurements were highly correlated (r = 0.7, P<.001). Baseline characteristics differed between the groups, with a higher prevalence of past myocardial infarction in the in-hospital vs the community echo group (46.7% vs 22.2%, P<.01), resulting in a higher LVEF in the latter, both by 2-DE (mean 50.7% +/- 11.7% vs 57.3% +/- 7.4%, P<.01) and SPECT (50.1% +/- 11.4% vs 57.4% +/- 8.4%, P<.01).

Conclusions: The Tl-201 gated SPECT is a reliable clinical tool for LVEF assessment, with good correlation when compared to 2-DE. It may be routinely used as an alternative for patients with poor acoustic visualization and should be performed systematically in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging with Tl-201.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Travin MI, Heller GV, Johnson LL, et al. The prognostic value of ECG‐gated SPECT imaging in patients undergoing stress Tc‐99 m sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2004; 11: 253–262. - PubMed
    1. Ban K, Nakajima T, Iseki H, Abe S, Handa S, Suzuki Y. Evaluation of global and regional left ventricular function obtained by quantitative gated SPECT using Tc‐99 m tetrofosmin for left ventricular dysfunction. Intern Med 2000; 39: 612–617. - PubMed
    1. Hyun IY, Kwan J, Park KS, Lee WH. Reproducibility of Tl‐201and Tc‐99 m‐sestamibi gated myocardial perfusion SPECT measurement of myocardial function. J Nucl Cardiol 2001; 8: 182–187. - PubMed
    1. DePuey EG, Parmett S, Ghesani M, Rozanski A, Nichols K, Salensky H. Comparison of Tc‐99 m sestamibi and Tl‐201gated perfusion SPECT. Nucl Cardiol 1999; 6: 278–285. - PubMed
    1. Cwajg E, Cwajg J, He Z‐X, et al. Gated myocardial perfusion tomography for the assessment of left ventricular function and volumes: comparison with echocardiography. J Nucl Med 1999; 40: 1857–1865. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources