6533b852fe1ef96bd12aa4aa

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Evaluation of left ventricular mass on cadmium-zinc-telluride imaging: Validation against cardiac magnetic resonance

Alessia GimelliRiccardo LigaMagro SerenaNovo SalvatorePedrinelli Roberto Anna Sonia PetronioMarzullo Paolo MdAlessia Pepe

subject

MaleIntraclass correlationHeart Ventricles030204 cardiovascular system & hematologyleft ventricular masscardiac magnetic resonance030218 nuclear medicine & medical imagingHeart NeoplasmsLeft ventricular mass03 medical and health sciencesMyocardial perfusion imagingchemistry.chemical_compound0302 clinical medicinePredictive Value of TestsNuclear Medicine and ImagingHumansMedicineRadiology Nuclear Medicine and imagingAgedRetrospective StudiesAged 80 and overTomography Emission-Computed Single-Photonmedicine.diagnostic_testbusiness.industryLimits of agreementMyocardial Perfusion ImagingReproducibility of ResultsCadmium-Zinc-Telluride Æ cardiac magnetic resonance Æ SPECT Æ left ventricular massMiddle AgedMagnetic Resonance ImagingCadmium zinc tellurideZincchemistryCadmium-Zinc-Telluride; cardiac magnetic resonance; left ventricular mass; SPECT; Radiology Nuclear Medicine and Imaging; Cardiology and Cardiovascular MedicineSPECTCadmium-Zinc-TellurideFemaleTelluriumRadiologyCardiology and Cardiovascular MedicineNuclear medicinebusinessCardiac magnetic resonanceEmission computed tomographyCadmium

description

Background. Single-photon emission computed tomography has shown relevant limitations in the quantification of left ventricular (LV) mass. We sought to compare the estimates of LV mass on Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride (CZT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) as compared to cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Methods and results. Twenty-five patients underwent MPI on a CZT camera and CMR on a 1.5 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 quantified using MASS software (Medis, Leiden, The Netherlands). LV mass values obtained with 4DM and ECTb 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 .007 vs 4DM) CZT images. There was an excellent correlation between LV mass values between CMR and both 4DM (R2 5 .95; P < .001) and ECTb (R2 5 .98; P < .001) with narrow limits of agreement (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 excellent agreement with CMR. (J Nucl Cardiol 2017)

yearjournalcountryeditionlanguage
2017-01-01Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-017-1086-6