Assessment of four different cardiac softwares for evaluation of LVEF with CZT-SPECT vs CMR in 48 patients with recent STEMI

Abstract

PurposeTo compare, vs CMR, four softwares: quantitative gated SPECT (QGS), myometrix (MX), corridor 4DM (4DM), and Emory toolbox (ECTb) to evaluate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end-systolic (ESV), and end-diastolic volumes (EDVs) by gated MPI CZT-SPECT. Methods48 patients underwent MPI CZT-SPECT and CMR 6 weeks after STEMI, LV parameters were measured with four softwares at MPI CZT-SPECT vs CMR. We evaluated (i) concordance and correlation between MPI CZT-SPECT and CMR, (ii) concordance MPI CZT-SPECT/CMR for the categorical evaluation of the left ventricular dysfunction, and (iii) impacts of perfusion defects > 3 segments on concordance. ResultsLVEF: LCC QGS/CMR = 0.81 [+ 2.2% (± 18%)], LCC MX/CMR = 0.83 [+ 1% (± 17.5%)], LCC 4DM/CMR = 0.73 [+ 3.9% (± 21%)], LCC ECTb/CMR = 0.69 [+ 6.6% (± 21.1%)]. ESV: LCC QGS/CMR = 0.90 [− 8 mL (± 40 mL)], LCC MX/CMR = 0.90 [− 9 mL (± 36 mL)], LCC 4DM/CMR = 0.89 [+ 4 mL (± 45 mL)], LCC ECTb/CMR = 0.87 [− 3 mL (± 45 mL)]. EDV: LCC QGS/CMR = 0.70 [− 16 mL (± 67 mL)], LCC MX/CMR = 0.68 [− 21 mL (± 63 mL], LCC 4DM/CMR = 0.72 [+ 9 mL (± 73 mL)], LCC ECTb/CMR = 0.69 [+ 10 mL (± 70 mL)]. ConclusionQGS and MX were the two best-performing softwares to evaluate LVEF after recent STEMI.