The objective of this study was to perform a head-to-head comparison between two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography and gated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPET) for the evaluation of left ventricular (LV) function and volumes in patients with severe ischaemic LV dysfunction. Thirty-two patients with chronic ischaemic LV dysfunction [mean LV ejection fraction (EF) 25%±6%] were studied with gated SPET and 2D echocardiography. Regional wall motion was evaluated by both modalities and scored by two independent observers using a 16-segment model with a 5-point scoring system (1= normokinesia, 2= mild hypo-kinesia, 3= severe hypokinesia, 4= akinesia and 5= dyskinesia). LVEF and LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were evaluated by 2D echocardiography using the Simpson's biplane discs method. The same parameters were calculated u sing quantitative gated SPET software (QGS, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center). The overall agreement between the two imaging modalities for assessment of regional wall motion was 69%. The correlations between gated SPET and 2D echocardiography for the assessment of end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were excellent (r=0.94, P<0.01, and r=0.96, P<0.01, respectively). The correlation for LVEF was also good (r=0.83, P<0.01). In conclusion: in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, close and significant relations between gated SPET and 2D echocardiography were observed for the assessment of regional and global LV function and LV volumes; gated SPET has the advantage that it provides information on both LV function/dimensions and perfusion.

2D echocardiography, Gated SPET, Ischaemic cardiomyopathy,
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Department of Surgery

Vourvouri, E.C, Roelandt, J.R.T.C, Poldermans, D, Bax, J.J, Sianos, G, Sozzi, F.B, … Valkema, R. (2001). Evaluation of left ventricular function and volumes in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy: Gated single-photon emission computed tomography versus two-dimensional echocardiography. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 28(11), 1610–1615. doi:10.1007/s002590100624