TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of left ventricular mass on cadmiumzinc- telluride imaging: Validation against cardiac magnetic resonance
AU - Novo, Salvatore
AU - Pepe, Alessia
AU - Liga, Riccardo
AU - Magro, Serena
AU - Petronio, Anna Sonia
AU - Gimelli, Alessia
AU - Marzullo, Paolo
AU - Pedrinelli, Roberto
AU - Pepe, Alessia
AU - Magro, Serena
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Background. Single-photon emission computed tomography has shown relevant limitationsin the quantification of left ventricular (LV) mass. We sought to compare the estimates of LVmass on Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride (CZT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) as compared tocardiac magnetic resonance (CMR).Methods and results. Twenty-five patients underwent MPI on a CZT camera and CMR on a1.5 T scanner within 12 ± 3 weeks. LV mass was quantified on CZT images using two softwares:4D-MSPECT (4DM) and Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb). LV mass by CMR was quantifiedusing MASS software (Medis, Leiden, The Netherlands). LV mass values obtained with 4DM andECTb were highly reproducible [intraclass correlation coefficients .98 (95% CI .97-.99), and .98(95% CI 0.97-.99), respectively]. The mean LVM mass values were 151 ± 44 g on CMR,151 ± 43 g with 4DM(P 5 NS vs CMR), and 157 ± 42 g with ECTb (P < .001 vs CMR; P 5 .007vs 4DM) CZT images. There was an excellent correlation between LV mass values between CMRand both 4DM (R2 5 .95; P < .001) and ECTb (R2 5 .98; P < .001) with narrow limits ofagreement (2 13.6% to 1 13.4% for 4DM, and 2 5.6% to 1 14.1% for ECTb).Conclusions. The evaluation of LV mass is feasible on CZT images, showing excellentagreement with CMR. (J Nucl Cardiol 2017)
AB - Background. Single-photon emission computed tomography has shown relevant limitationsin the quantification of left ventricular (LV) mass. We sought to compare the estimates of LVmass on Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride (CZT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) as compared tocardiac magnetic resonance (CMR).Methods and results. Twenty-five patients underwent MPI on a CZT camera and CMR on a1.5 T scanner within 12 ± 3 weeks. LV mass was quantified on CZT images using two softwares:4D-MSPECT (4DM) and Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb). LV mass by CMR was quantifiedusing MASS software (Medis, Leiden, The Netherlands). LV mass values obtained with 4DM andECTb were highly reproducible [intraclass correlation coefficients .98 (95% CI .97-.99), and .98(95% CI 0.97-.99), respectively]. The mean LVM mass values were 151 ± 44 g on CMR,151 ± 43 g with 4DM(P 5 NS vs CMR), and 157 ± 42 g with ECTb (P < .001 vs CMR; P 5 .007vs 4DM) CZT images. There was an excellent correlation between LV mass values between CMRand both 4DM (R2 5 .95; P < .001) and ECTb (R2 5 .98; P < .001) with narrow limits ofagreement (2 13.6% to 1 13.4% for 4DM, and 2 5.6% to 1 14.1% for ECTb).Conclusions. The evaluation of LV mass is feasible on CZT images, showing excellentagreement with CMR. (J Nucl Cardiol 2017)
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10447/298389
M3 - Article
SN - 1071-3581
JO - Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
JF - Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
ER -