Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 9, 2026
Quantification of Mouse Heart Left Ventricular Function, Myocardial Strain, and Hemodynamic Forces by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Published on: May 24, 2021
[Determination of ventricular volumes in coronary artery disease: comparison of two gated SPECT analysis tools with
M Gutberlet1, S Mehl, M Fröhlich
1Klinik für Strahlenheilkunde, Charité, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin. matthias.gutberlet@charite.de
Insights
Gated SPECT analysis tools GSQ and ECT reliably assess cardiac function in patients with coronary artery disease. GSQ offers faster processing, but both methods show reduced accuracy with myocardial scars.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Imaging
- Nuclear Cardiology
- Medical Device Analysis
Background:
- Coronary artery disease (CAD) with severely impaired left ventricular function (LV-EF <35%) presents a high-risk surgical population.
- Accurate assessment of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction is crucial for preoperative risk stratification and postoperative management.
- Gated SPECT is a widely used nuclear imaging technique for evaluating cardiac function.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the accuracy and efficiency of two gated SPECT analysis tools: Gated SPECT Quantification (GSQ) and Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECT).
- To evaluate these tools in patients with CAD and severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LV-EF).
- To assess the impact of myocardial scarring on the concordance of gated SPECT results with cardiac MRI.
Main Methods:
- 56 gated SPECT examinations were performed using a hybrid protocol with thallium-201 (rest) and technetium-99m-sestamibi (stress) during dobutamine stress.
- Temporal resolution was set to 8 phases per cardiac cycle.
- Left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LV-EDV), end-systolic volume (LV-ESV), and LV-EF were calculated by GSQ and ECT and compared with cardiac MRI in 48 cases.
Main Results:
- Both GSQ and ECT demonstrated good intraclass correlation coefficients for volumetric assessment, with improved correlation postoperatively.
- GSQ had a significantly shorter mean reconstruction time (approx. 3 minutes) compared to ECT (approx. 15 minutes).
- Concordance with MRI was good but decreased in the presence of myocardial scars, particularly for LV-EF calculations.
Conclusions:
- Both GSQ and ECT provide reliable volumetric assessments in high-risk CAD patients with reduced LV-EF compared to MRI.
- GSQ offers a significant advantage in terms of postprocessing time.
- The presence of myocardial scars impacts the accuracy of LV-EF calculation by both gated SPECT tools when compared to MRI.
Aim:
Comparison of two gated SPECT analysis tools -- gated SPECT quantification (GSQ) and emory cardiac toolbox (ECT) -- in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and severely impaired left ventricular function (preoperative: EF <35% by cardiac catheter).
Patients, Methods:
A total of 56 gated SPECT examinations (one-day hybrid-protocol with (201)Tl-chloride for rest and (99m)Tc-sestamibi for stress applied during low-dose dobutamine stress MR-examination; temporal resolution; 8 phases per cardiac cycle) were performed in 36 patients (31 preoperatively, 25 postoperatively) and compared with MRI in 48 cases. Left ventricular end-diastolic (LV-EDV) and end-systolic (LV-ESV) volumes as well as the left ventricular ejection fraction (LV-EF) were calculated.
Results:
The total volumetric assessment by both analysis algorithms (n = 56) showed good intraclass correlation coefficients preoperatively (n = 31), but even better postoperatively (n = 25). The mean reconstruction time was approximately 3 minutes ( +/- 2 SD) for GSQ and 15 minutes ( +/- 5 SD) for ECT. In comparison to MRI the results of both analysis tools also correlated well, but the agreement decreased in the presence of scared tissue. The mean LV-EF (MRI) preoperatively was 30.4%, in 6/36 patients above the values calculated from cardiac catheter, postoperatively 34.6%.
Conclusion:
Both gated SPECT analysis tools showed reliable volumetric assessments in high-risk patients with CAD and severely reduced LV-EF in comparison to MRI, with advantages for GSQ in terms of postprocessing time. However, for the calculation of LV-EF a markedly lower concordance with MR-results was observed for both methods depending on the presence of myocardial scars.
