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.