Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 4, 2025
Estimating Bilateral Atrial Function by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Feature Tracking in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: July 20, 2022
Ejection fraction and ventricular volumes on rubidium positron emission tomography: Validation against cardiovascular
Yushui Han1, Ahmed Ibrahim Ahmed1, Jean Michel Saad1
1Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Background:
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is the non-invasive gold standard for non-invasively determining left ventricular volumes (LVVs) and ejection fraction (EF). We aimed to assess the accuracy of LVV and left ventricular ejection fraction measured by positron emission tomography (PET) as compared to CMR.
Methods:
Patients who underwent both PET and CMR within 1 year were identified from prospective institutional registries. Analysis was performed to evaluate the agreement between the raw and body-surface-area-normalized left ventricular volume (LVV) and EF derived from PET vs. those derived from CMR.
Results:
The study population consisted of 669 patients (mean age 62 ± 13 years, 65% male). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration between CMR and PET imaging was 36 (7-118) days. The median (IQR) EF values were 52% (38-63%) on CMR and 53% (37-65%) on PET (mean difference: 0.53% ± 9.1, P = 0.129) with a strong correlation (Spearman rho = 0.84, P < 0.001; Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82-0.86, P < 0.001; Lin's concordance correlation coefficient was 0.844, 95% CI: 0.822 to 0.865). Results were similar with LVV, normalized LVV/EF, and in subgroups of patients with reduced EF, coronary artery disease scar, and LV hypertrophy as well as in patients with defibrillators. However, PET tended to underestimate LVV compared to CMR.
Conclusion:
Our analysis showed a strong correlation of EF and LVV by PET against a reference standard of CMR, whereas PET significantly underestimated LVV, but not EF, compared to CMR.
