EJNMMI Physics (Nov 2016)
Left ventricular function assessment using 123I/99mTc dual-isotope acquisition with two semi-conductor cadmium–zinc–telluride (CZT) cameras: a gated cardiac phantom study
Abstract
Abstract Background The impact of increased energy resolution of cadmium–zinc–telluride (CZT) cameras on the assessment of left ventricular function under dual-isotope conditions (99mTc and 123I) remains unknown. The Amsterdam-gated dynamic cardiac phantom (AGATE, Vanderwilt techniques, Boxtel, The Netherlands) was successively filled with a solution of 123I alone, 99mTc alone, and a mixture of 123I and 99mTc. A total of 12 datasets was acquired with each commercially available CZT camera (DNM 530c, GE Healthcare and DSPECT, Biosensors International) using both energy windows (99mTc or 123I) with ejection fraction set to 33, 45, and 60 %. End-diastolic (EDV) and end-systolic (ESV) volumes, ejection fraction (LVEF), and regional wall motion and thickening (17-segment model) were assessed using Cedars-Sinai QGS Software. Concordance between single- and dual-isotope acquisitions was tested using Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and Bland–Altman plots. Results There was no significant difference between single- or simultaneous dual-isotope acquisition (123I and 99mTc) for EDV, ESV, LVEF, or segmental wall motion and thickening. Myocardial volumes using single- (123I, 99mTc) and dual-isotope (reconstructed using both 123I and 99mTc energy windows) acquisitions were, respectively, the following: EDV (mL) 88 ± 27 vs. 89 ± 27 vs. 92 ± 29 vs. 90 ± 26 for DNM 530c (p = NS) and 82 ± 20 vs. 83 ± 22 vs. 79 ± 19 vs. 77 ± 20 for DSPECT (p = NS); ESV (mL) 40 ± 1 vs. 41 ± 2 vs. 41 ± 2 vs. 42 ± 1 for DNM 530c (p = NS) and 37 ± 5 vs. 37 ± 1 vs. 35 ± 3 vs. 34 ± 2 for DSPECT (p = NS); LVEF (%) 52 ± 14 vs. 51 ± 13 vs. 53 ± 13 vs. 51 ± 13 for DNM 530c (p = NS) and 52 ± 16 vs. 54 ± 13 vs. 54 ± 14 vs. 54 ± 13 for DSPECT (p = NS); regional motion (mm) 6.72 ± 2.82 vs. 6.58 ± 2.52 vs. 6.86 ± 2.99 vs. 6.59 ± 2.76 for DNM 530c (p = NS) and 6.79 ± 3.17 vs. 6.81 ± 2.75 vs. 6.71 ± 2.50 vs. 6.62 ± 2.74 for DSPECT (p = NS). The type of camera significantly impacted only on ESV (p < 0.001). Conclusions The new CZT cameras yielded similar results for the assessment of LVEF and regional motion using different energy windows (123I or 99mTc) and acquisition types (single vs. dual). With simultaneous dual-isotope acquisitions, the presence of 123I did not impact on LVEF assessment within the 99mTc energy window for either CZT camera.
Keywords
