PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Wolfgang M. Schaefer AU - Claudia S.A. Lipke AU - Bernd Nowak AU - Hans-Juergen Kaiser AU - Patrick Reinartz AU - Arno Buecker AU - Gabriele A. Krombach AU - Udalrich Buell AU - Harald P. Kühl TI - Validation of QGS and 4D-MSPECT for Quantification of Left Ventricular Volumes and Ejection Fraction from Gated <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET: Comparison with Cardiac MRI DP - 2004 Jan 01 TA - Journal of Nuclear Medicine PG - 74--79 VI - 45 IP - 1 4099 - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/45/1/74.short 4100 - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/45/1/74.full SO - J Nucl Med2004 Jan 01; 45 AB - The aim of this study was to validate Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) and 4D-MSPECT for assessing left ventricular end-diastolic and systolic volumes (EDV and ESV, respectively) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from gated 18F-FDG PET. Methods: Forty-four patients with severe coronary artery disease were examined with gated 18F-FDG PET (8 gates per cardiac cycle). EDV, ESV, and LVEF were calculated from gated 18F-FDG PET using QGS and 4D-MSPECT. Within 2 d (median), cardiovascular cine MRI (cMRI) (20 gates per cardiac cycle) was done as a reference. Results: QGS failed to accurately detect myocardial borders in 1 patient; 4D-MSPECT, in 2 patients. For the remaining 42 patients, correlation between the results of gated 18F-FDG PET and cMRI was high for EDV (R = 0.94 for QGS and 0.94 for 4D-MSPECT), ESV (R = 0.95 for QGS and 0.95 for 4D-MSPECT), and LVEF (R = 0.94 for QGS and 0.90 for 4D-MSPECT). QGS significantly (P &lt; 0.0001) underestimated LVEF, whereas no other parameter differed significantly between gated 18F-FDG PET and cMRI for either algorithm. Conclusion: Despite small systematic differences that, among other aspects, limit interchangeability, agreement between gated 18F-FDG PET and cMRI is good across a wide range of clinically relevant volumes and LVEF values assessed by QGS and 4D-MSPECT.