Electrocardiogram-gated single-photonemission computed tomography versus cardiacmagnetic resonance imaging for the assessmentof left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction
A meta-analysis
John P. A. Ioannidis, MD* ,
Thomas A. Trikalinos* and
Peter G. Danias, MD, PhD, FACC ,*
* Clinical Trials and Evidence-Based Medicine Unit and Clinical and Molecular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece
Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
View larger version (39K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1 Scatter plots of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) measurements in subjects who underwent imaging with both modalities. (A) Left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (EDV) in ml; (B) LV end-systolic volume (ESV) in ml; (C) LV ejection fraction (EF). Patients in the two publications by Tadamura et al. (10,11) are shown as belonging to the same study. End-diastolic volume and ESV data were not provided for individual subjects in Stolfuss et al. (8) and could only be discerned for subjects with substantial discrepancies between cardiac MRI and ECG-gated SPECT in Mochizuki et al. (6) (not shown here, but included in the calculations of the proportion with discrepancies). Faber pertains to reference 9, while FaberB pertains to reference 14.
|
|
View larger version (36K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2 Bland-Altman plots of the data presented in Figure 2. (A) Left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (EDV) in ml; (B) LV end-systolic volume (ESV) in ml; (C) LV ejection fraction (EF).
|
|
|
