Correlative study comparing current different methods of calculating left ventricular ejection fraction

Park

et al. 2019

Nucl Med Mol Imaging

Purpose Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) is an important parameter for assessing cardiac systolic function and predicting prognosis in patients with cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of assessing LVEF by Tl-201 hybrid myocardial single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT using two attenuation correction methods in patients with angina pectoris. Methods A total of 339 patients with angina pectoris (62.8 ± 12.9 years, male:female = 206:133) were analyzed. All patients underwent Tl-201 myocardial SPECT/CT and transthoracic two-dimensional (2D) echocardiograph. We compared LVEF assessed by SPECT/CT using two attenuation correction methods: CT-based attenuation correction (CTAC) and nonattenuation correction (non-AC) methods and 2D echocardiography. Results LVEF assessed by either of the two attenuation correction techniques and 2D echocardiography showed moderate correlation in all patients with angina pectoris (r = 0.487 for CTAC and r = 0.473 for non-AC, p < 0.001). Results were similar in the subgroup of patients with perfusion abnormalities on myocardial SPECT/CT images. Overall diagnostic performances were similar for the CTAC and non-AC methods for evaluating normal and decreased LVEF by myocardial SPECT/CT. Conclusion LVEF measured by the CTAC method of Tl-201-gated myocardial SPECT/CT was comparable with the conventional non-AC method in patients with angina pectoris and in the subgroup of patients with perfusion abnormality. Tl-201-gated myocardial hybrid SPECT/CT can be a reliable tool in the assessment of LVEF in clinic.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction by Thallium-201 Myocardial SPECT-CT in Patients with Angina Pectoris: Comparison with 2D Echocardiography

Park

et al. 2019

Nucl Med Mol Imaging

“…Sixth, LVEF was assessed by echocardiography or by left ventriculography. However, studies report a sufficient correlation of both modalities to assess LVEF 23…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nocturnal respiratory rate as a predictor of mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome

et al. 2018

BackgroundPatients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are at risk especially in the period shortly after the event. Alterations in respiratory control have been associated with adverse prognosis. The aim of our study was to assess if the nocturnal respiratory rate (NRR) is a predictor of mortality in patients with ACS presenting in the emergency department.MethodsClinically stable consecutive patients with ACS aged ≥ 18 years were prospectively enrolled. The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were assessed for all patients. The average NRR over a period of 6 hours was determined by the records of the surveillance monitors in the first night after admission. Primary and secondary endpoints were intrahospital and 2 years all-cause mortality, respectively.ResultsOf the 860 patients with ACS, 21 (2.4%) died within the intrahospital phase and 108 patients (12.6%) died within the subsequent 2 years. The NRR was a significant predictor of both endpoints and was independent from the GRACE score and LVEF. Implementing the NRR into the GRACE risk model leads to a significant increase of the C-statistics especially for prediction of intrahospital mortality.ConclusionThe NRR is an independent predictor of mortality in patients with ACS.

“…[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] Prior studies, like ours, reported mean LVEF values and binary correlations between imaging techniques. [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] Our study demonstrated that mean LVEF values obtained from 2DE were nearly equal to those obtained from ICLV. Similar observations were reported by Murarka et al, 30 Godkar et al, 41 and Joffe et al 29 In contrast, mean LVEF values obtained using 2DE were lower than those obtained using ICLV in studies reported by Albrechtsson et al, 28 Nichols et al, 38 and Hoffman et al 27 In Hoffman's 27 study, mean LVEF values were higher and more comparable to those obtained with ICLV when contrast echocardiography was e...…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[19][20][21] Multiple studies have compared ICLV and individual noninvasive techniques for measuring LVEF. [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] Some have compared LVEF measurements utilizing two or three noninvasive cardiac techniques. [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] This study retrospectively compared LVEF in patients hospitalized for evaluation of chest pain, who underwent an ICLV, 2DE and gSPECT within 3 months of each other, not interrupted by myocardial infarction or by percutaneous or surgical coronary revascularization.…”

Section: Comparison Of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Values Obtamentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction values obtained using invasive contrast left ventriculography, two-dimensional echocardiography, and gated single-photon emission computed tomography

et al. 2016

Objectives:Left ventricular ejection fraction can be measured by a variety of invasive and non-invasive cardiac techniques. This study assesses the relation of three diagnostic modalities to each other in the measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction: invasive contrast left ventriculography, two-dimensional echocardiography, and quantitative gated single-photon emission computed tomography.Methods:Retrospective chart review was conducted on 58 patients hospitalized with chest pain, who underwent left ventricular ejection fraction evaluation using each of the aforementioned modalities within a 3-month period not interrupted by myocardial infarction or revascularization.Results:The mean left ventricular ejection fraction values were as follows: invasive contrast left ventriculography (0.44±0.15), two-dimensional echocardiography (0.46±0.13), and gated single-photon emission computed tomography (0.37±0.10). Correlations coefficients and associated p values were as follows: invasive contrast left ventriculography versus two-dimensional echocardiography (r=0.69, p<0.001), invasive contrast left ventriculography versus gated single-photon emission computed tomography (r=0.80, p<0.0001), and gated single-photon emission computed tomography versus two-dimensional echocardiography (r=0.69, p<0.001).Conclusion:Our results indicate that strong positive correlations exist among the three techniques studied.