Left ventricular function and volumes from gated [13N]-ammonia positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging: A prospective head-to-head comparison against CMR using a hybrid PET/MR device

Reproducibility of Left Ventricular Function Derived From Cardiac Magnetic Resonance and Gated 13N-Ammonia Positron Emission Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: A Head-to-Head Comparison Using Hybrid Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and gated 13N-ammonia positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (PET-MPI) offer accurate and highly comparable global left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measurements. In addition to accuracy, however, reproducibility is crucial to avoid variations in LVEF assessment potentially negatively impacting treatment decisions. We performed a head-to-head comparison of the reproducibility of LVEF measurements derived from simultaneously acquired CMR and PET-MPI using different state-of-the-art commercially available software.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

93 patients undergoing hybrid PET/MR were retrospectively included. LVEF was derived from CMR and PET-MPI at two separate core labs, using two state-of-the-art software packages for CMR (cvi42 and Medis Suite MR) and PET (QPET and CardIQ Physio). Intra- and inter-reader agreement was assessed using correlation and Bland-Altman (BA) analyses.

RESULTS

While intra- and inter-reader reproducibility of LVEF was high among both modalities and all software packages (r ≥ 0.87 and ICC≥0.91, all significant at p < 0.0001), LVEF derived from PET-MPI and analyzed with QPET outperformed all other analyses (intra-reader reproducibility: r = 0.99, ICC=0.99; inter-reader reproducibility: r = 0.98, ICC=1.00; Pearson correlations significantly higher than all others at p ≤ 0.0001). BA analyses showed smaller biases for LVEF derived from PET-MPI (-0.1% and +0.9% for intra-reader, -0.4% and -0.8% for inter-reader agreement) than those derived from CMR (+0.7% and +2.8% for intra-reader, -0.9% and -2.2% for inter-reader agreement) with similar results for BA limits of agreement.

CONCLUSION

Gated 13N-ammonia PET-MPI provides equivalent reproducibility of LVEF compared to CMR. It may offer a valid alternative to CMR for patients requiring LV functional assessment.

Left-ventricular volumes and ejection fraction from cardiac ECG-gated 15O-water positron emission tomography compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging using simultaneous hybrid PET/MR

BACKGROUND

15O-water PET is the gold standard for noninvasive quantification of myocardial blood flow. In addition to evaluation of ischemia, the assessment of cardiac function and remodeling is important in all cardiac diseases. However, since 15O-water is freely diffusible and standard uptake images show little contrast between the myocardium and blood pool, the assessment of left-ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (EF) is challenging. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate the feasibility of calculating LV volumes and EF from first-pass analysis of 15O-water PET, by comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) using a hybrid PET/MR scanner.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients with known or suspected CAD underwent a simultaneous ECG-gated cardiac PET/MR scan. The 15O-water first-pass images (0-50 seconds) were analyzed using the CarPET software and the CMR images were analyzed using the software Segment, for LV volumes and EF calculations. The LV volumes and EF were compared using correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. In addition, inter- and intra-observer variability of LV volumes and EF were assessed for both modalities.

RESULTS

The correlation between PET and CMR was strong for volumes (r > 0.84) and moderate for EF (r = 0.52), where the moderate correlation for EF was partly due to the small range of EF values. Agreement was high for all parameters, with a slight overestimation of PET values for end-diastolic volume but with no significant mean bias for other parameters. Inter- and intra-observer agreement of volumes was high and comparable between PET and CMR. For EF, inter-observer agreement was higher for PET and intra-observer agreement was higher for CMR.

CONCLUSION

LV volumes and EF can be calculated by first-pass analysis of a 15O-water PET scan with high accuracy and comparable precision as with CMR.