• Lei Wang, Yan Zhang, Chaowu Yan, Jianguo He, Changming Xiong, Shihua Zhao, and Wei Fang.
• Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cardiovascular Institute and Fu Wai Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, 167 Beilishi Road, Beijing, 100037, China.
• J Nucl Cardiol. 2013 Apr 1; 20 (2): 242-52.

BackgroundRight ventricular (RV) function is a powerful predictor of survival in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), but noninvasively assessing RV function remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare gated (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG PET) myocardial imaging (gated PET), cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), and cardiac computed tomography (CCT) for the assessment of RV volume and ejection fraction in patients with PH.MethodsTwenty-three consecutive patients aged more than 16 years diagnosed with PH were included. All patients underwent gated PET, CMR, and CCT within 7 days. Right ventricular end-diastolic volume (RVEDV), right ventricular end-systolic volume (RVESV), and right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) were calculated by three imaging modalities. RV (18)F-FDG uptake was determined as RV-corrected standardized uptake value (SUV), and the ratio of RV to left ventricular (LV)-corrected SUV (Corrected SUV R/L).ResultsGated PET showed a moderate correlation (r = 0.680, P < .001) for RVEDV, good correlation for RVESV (r = 0.757, P < .001) and RVEF (r = 0.788, P < .001) with CMR, and good correlation for RVEDV (r = 0.767, P < .001), RVESV (r = 0.837, P < .001), and RVEF (r = 0.730, P < .001) with CCT. Bland-Altman analysis revealed systematic underestimation of RVEDV and RVESV and overestimation of RVEF with gated PET compared with CMR and CCT. The correlation between RVESV (r = 0.863, P < .001), RVESV (r = 0.903, P < .001), and RVEF (r = 0.853, P < .001) of CMR and those of CCT was excellent; Bland-Altman analysis showed only a slight systematic variation between CMR and CCT. There were statistically significant negative correlations between RV-corrected SUV and RVEF-CMR (r = -0.543, P < .01), Corrected SUV R/L and RVEF-CMR (r = -0.521, P < .05), RV-corrected SUV and RVEF-CCT (r = -0.429, P < .05), Corrected SUV R/L and RVEF-CCT (r = -0.580, P < .01), respectively.ConclusionGated PET had moderate-to-high correlation with CMR and CCT in the assessments of RV volume and ejection fraction. It is an available method for simultaneous assessing of RV function and myocardial glucose metabolism in patients with PH.

26 keywords...

hide…