Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction by single photon computed tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging versus coronary computed tomography angiography

被引:0
|
作者
Rajdev, Archana [1 ]
Aronow, Wilbert S. [1 ]
Lai, Hoang M. [1 ]
Ravipati, Gautham [1 ]
DeLuca, Albert J. [1 ]
Weiss, Melvin B. [1 ]
Belkin, Robert N. [1 ]
机构
[1] New York Med Coll, Div Cardiol, Dept Med, Valhalla, NY 10595 USA
关键词
left ventricular ejection fraction; myocardial perfusion imaging; coronary computed tomography angiography; CONGESTIVE-HEART-FAILURE; DILATED CARDIOMYOPATHY; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; VOLUMES; SECONDARY; ACCURACY;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: Measurement of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction by coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) vs. single photon computed tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) needs to be investigated. Material and methods: Myocardial perfusion imaging and CTA were performed in 292 patients because of chest pain or dyspnea. The patients included 178 men and 114 women, mean age 66 +/- 11 years. Results: The mean LV ejection fraction was 61 +/- 12% for the MPI tests and 65 +/- 11% for CTA (p <0.001). The LV ejection fraction was >= 50% in 250 of 292 patients (86%) with MPI testing and in 266 of 292 patients (91%) with CTA (p < 0.05). The LV ejection fraction was 36-49% in 31 of 292 patients (11%) with MPI testing and in 22 of 292 patients (8%) with CTA (p not significant). The LV ejection fraction was <= 35% in 11 of 292 patients (4%) with MPI testing and in 4 of 292 patients (1%) with CTA (p not significant). Pearson correlation coefficient was R = 0.67, p < 0.001. Conclusions: The resting LV ejection fraction is significantly higher in patients measured by CTA than in patients measured by MPI testing when both tests are performed in the same patients.
引用
收藏
页码:28 / 31
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Reliability of left ventricular ejection fraction calculated with gated myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography in patients with extensive perfusion defect
    Harisankar, Chidambaram Natrajan Balasubramanian
    Mittal, Bhagwant Rai
    Kamaleshwaran, Koramadai Karuppuswamy
    Parmar, Madan
    Bhattacharya, Anish
    Singh, Baljinder
    Mahajan, Rajiv
    NUCLEAR MEDICINE COMMUNICATIONS, 2011, 32 (06) : 503 - 507
  • [2] Clinical Outcomes of Dynamic Computed Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Combined With Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Versus Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography-Guided Strategy
    Yu, Mengmeng
    Shen, Chengxing
    Dai, Xu
    Lu, Zhigang
    Wang, Yining
    Lu, Bin
    Zhang, Jiayin
    CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING, 2020, 13 (01) : E009775
  • [3] Accuracy of Computed Tomographic Angiography and Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography-Acquired Myocardial Perfusion Imaging for the Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease
    Arbab-Zadeh, Armin
    Di Carli, Marcelo F.
    Cerci, Rodrigo
    George, Richard T.
    Chen, Marcus Y.
    Dewey, Marc
    Niinuma, Hiroyuki
    Vavere, Andrea L.
    Betoko, Aisha
    Plotkin, Michail
    Cox, Christopher
    Clouse, Melvin E.
    Arai, Andrew E.
    Rochitte, Carlos E.
    Lima, Joao A. C.
    Brinker, Jeffrey
    Miller, Julie M.
    CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING, 2015, 8 (10)
  • [4] Diagnostic accuracy of myocardial perfusion imaging with single photon emission computed tomography and positron emission tomography: a comparison with coronary angiography
    Husmann, Lars
    Wiegand, Mischa
    Valenta, Ines
    Gaemperli, Oliver
    Schepis, Tiziano
    Siegrist, Patrick T.
    Namdar, Mehdi
    Wyss, Christophe A.
    Alkadhi, Hatem
    Kaufmann, Philipp A.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING, 2008, 24 (05) : 511 - 518
  • [5] Diagnostic accuracy of myocardial perfusion imaging with single photon emission computed tomography and positron emission tomography: a comparison with coronary angiography
    Lars Husmann
    Mischa Wiegand
    Ines Valenta
    Oliver Gaemperli
    Tiziano Schepis
    Patrick T. Siegrist
    Mehdi Namdar
    Christophe A. Wyss
    Hatem Alkadhi
    Philipp A. Kaufmann
    The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, 2008, 24 : 511 - 518
  • [6] Ejection Fractions Determined by Cardiac Computed Tomographic Angiography and Single Photon Emission Computed Tomographic Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Are Not Interchangeable: Evidence of Significant and Sex-Associated Disparities
    Mehta, Alpesh
    Travin, Mark I.
    Levsky, Jeffrey M.
    Jain, Vineet R.
    Burton, William B.
    Haramati, Linda B.
    JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2009, 33 (04) : 489 - 497
  • [7] An anomalous left coronary artery with a malignant course: coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging with computed tomography
    M. A. de Graaf
    A. R. van Rosendael
    L. J. Kroft
    H. W. Vliegen
    M. G. Hazekamp
    J. J. Bax
    A. J. Scholte
    Netherlands Heart Journal, 2016, 24 : 154 - 155
  • [8] Left ventricular mass from gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: Comparison with cardiac computed tomography
    Okwuosa, Tochi M.
    Hampole, Chetan V.
    Ali, Javid
    Williams, Kim A.
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY, 2009, 16 (05) : 775 - 783
  • [9] Comparison of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography, Fractional Flow Reserve, and Perfusion Imaging for Ischemia Diagnosis
    Driessen, Roel S.
    Danad, Ibrahim
    Stuijfzand, Wijnand J.
    Raijmakers, Pieter G.
    Schumacher, Stefan P.
    van Diemen, Pepijn A.
    Leipsic, Jonathon A.
    Knuuti, Juhani
    Underwood, S. Richard
    van de Ven, Peter M.
    van Rossum, Albert C.
    Taylor, Charles A.
    Knaapen, Paul
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2019, 73 (02) : 161 - 173
  • [10] Factors affecting the measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction in myocardial perfusion imaging
    Lavender, Frances M.
    Meades, Richard T.
    Al-Nahhas, Adil
    Nijran, Kuldip S.
    NUCLEAR MEDICINE COMMUNICATIONS, 2009, 30 (05) : 350 - 355