JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rajappan, K.
Right arrow Articles by Pennell, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rajappan, K.
Right arrow Articles by Pennell, D. J.
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Vol. 43 No. 6 806-810
© 2002 by Society of Nuclear Medicine


Brief Communications

Measurement of Ventricular Volumes and Function: A Comparison of Gated PET and Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

Kim Rajappan, MBBS1,2, Lefteris Livieratos, MSc2, Paolo G. Camici, MD2 and Dudley J. Pennell, MD1

1 Cardiovascular MR Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, National Heart and Lung Institute, London, United Kingdom
2 MRC Clinical Sciences Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to compare cardiac volume and function assessment using PET with the reference technique of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Methods: Left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV), and ejection fractions (EF) were measured in 9 patients using both CMR and PET with inhaled C15O. Results: Correlation between the techniques was generally reasonable (r values ranged from 0.63 to 0.99). Best agreement was seen for ESV (LV and RV). With PET, there was a tendency to underestimate LV EF and EDV, and RV EDV and SV. Agreement was worst for LV SV. Percentage difference between CMR and PET measurements ranged from -2% to 15%; Bland-Altman limits of agreement ranged from 24% to 75%. Conclusion: Although small systematic differences exist, the agreement between PET and CMR suggests useful information regarding function, and volumes may be obtained from a standard PET protocol.

Key Words: PET • cardiovascular magnetic resonance • cardiac function




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JNMHome page
A. Khorsand, S. Graf, H. Eidherr, W. Wadsak, K. Kletter, H. Sochor, E. Schuster, and G. Porenta
Gated Cardiac 13N-NH3 PET for Assessment of Left Ventricular Volumes, Mass, and Ejection Fraction: Comparison with Electrocardiography-Gated 18F-FDG PET
J. Nucl. Med., December 1, 2005; 46(12): 2009 - 2013.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
L. Stegger, K. P. Schafers, U. Flogel, L. Livieratos, S. Hermann, C. Jacoby, P. Keul, E. M. Conway, O. Schober, J. Schrader, et al.
Monitoring Left Ventricular Dilation in Mice with PET
J. Nucl. Med., September 1, 2005; 46(9): 1516 - 1521.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur J EchocardiogrHome page
F. Rademakers
Echocardiographic volumetry of the right ventricle
Eur J Echocardiogr, January 1, 2005; 6(1): 4 - 6.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
M. R. Prince, P. O. Alderson, and H. D. Sostman
Chronic Pulmonary Embolism: Combining MR Angiography with Functional Assessment
Radiology, August 1, 2004; 232(2): 325 - 326.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
R. H.J.A. Slart, J. J. Bax, R. M. de Jong, J. de Boer, H. J. Lamb, P. H. Mook, A. T.M. Willemsen, W. Vaalburg, D. J. van Veldhuisen, and P. L. Jager
Comparison of Gated PET with MRI for Evaluation of Left Ventricular Function in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease
J. Nucl. Med., February 1, 2004; 45(2): 176 - 182.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
W. M. Schaefer, C. S.A. Lipke, B. Nowak, H.-J. Kaiser, P. Reinartz, A. Buecker, G. A. Krombach, U. Buell, and H. P. Kuhl
Validation of QGS and 4D-MSPECT for Quantification of Left Ventricular Volumes and Ejection Fraction from Gated 18F-FDG PET: Comparison with Cardiac MRI
J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2004; 45(1): 74 - 79.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
A. Khorsand, S. Graf, H. Frank, K. Kletter, H. Sochor, G. Maurer, E. Schuster, S. Globits, R. Dudczak, and G. Porenta
Model-Based Analysis of Electrocardiography-Gated Cardiac 18F-FDG PET Images to Assess Left Ventricular Geometry and Contractile Function
J. Nucl. Med., November 1, 2003; 44(11): 1741 - 1746.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
E. Croteau, F. Benard, J. Cadorette, M.-E. Gauthier, A. Aliaga, M'h. Bentourkia, and R. Lecomte
Quantitative Gated PET for the Assessment of Left Ventricular Function in Small Animals
J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2003; 44(10): 1655 - 1661.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
P. G. Camici
Gated PET and Ventricular Volume
J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2003; 44(10): 1662 - 1662.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Copyright © 2002 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine.