Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 22, 2026
High-Resolution Cardiac Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for Small Animals
Published on: December 16, 2022
Accuracy of 4 different algorithms for the analysis of tomographic radionuclide ventriculography using a physical,
Pieter De Bondt1, Tom Claessens, Bart Rys
1Division of Nuclear Medicine, P7, Ghent University Hospital, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. pdebondt@skynet.be
Unlabelled:
Various automatic algorithms are now being developed to calculate left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) ejection fraction from tomographic radionuclide ventriculography. We tested the performance of 4 of these algorithms in estimating LV and RV volume and ejection fraction using a dynamic 4-chamber cardiac phantom.
Methods:
We developed a realistic physical, dynamic 4-chamber cardiac phantom and acquired 25 tomographic radionuclide ventriculography images within a wide range of end-diastolic volumes, end-systolic volumes, and stroke volumes. We assessed the ability of 4 algorithms (QBS, QUBE, 4D-MSPECT, and BP-SPECT) to calculate LV and RV volume and ejection fraction.
Results:
For the left ventricle, the correlations between reference and estimated volumes (0.93, 0.93, 0.96, and 0.93 for QBS, QUBE, 4D-MSPECT, and BP-SPECT, respectively; all with P < 0.001) and ejection fractions (0.90, 0.93, 0.88, and 0.92, respectively; all with P < 0.001) were good, although all algorithms underestimated the volumes (mean difference [+/-2 SDs] from Bland-Altman analysis: -39.83 +/- 43.12 mL, -33.39 +/- 38.12 mL, -33.29 +/- 40.70 mL, and -16.61 +/- 39.64 mL, respectively). The underestimation by QBS, QUBE, and 4D-MSPECT was greater for higher volumes. QBS, QUBE, and BP-SPECT could also be tested for the right ventricle. Correlations were good for the volumes (0.93, 0.95, and 0.97 for QBS, QUBE, and BP-SPECT, respectively; all with P < 0.001). In terms of absolute volume estimation, the mean differences (+/-2 SDs) from Bland-Altman analysis were -41.28 +/- 43.66 mL, 11.13 +/- 49.26 mL, and -13.11 +/- 28.20 mL, respectively. Calculation of RV ejection fraction correlated well with true values (0.84, 0.92, and 0.94, respectively; all with P < 0.001), although an overestimation was seen for higher ejection fractions.
Conclusion:
Calculation of LV and RV ejection fraction based on tomographic radionuclide ventriculography was accurate for all tested algorithms. All algorithms underestimated LV volume; estimation of RV volume seemed more difficult, with different results for each algorithm. The more irregular shape and inclusion of a relatively hypokinetic RV outflow tract in the right ventricle seemed to cause the greater difficulty with delineation of the right ventricle, compared with the left ventricle.
