assessment of four different cardiac softwares for evaluation of lvef with czt-spect vs cmr in 48 patients with recent stemi

To compare, vs cmr, four softwares: quantitative gated spect (qgs), myometrix (mx), corridor 4dm (4dm), and emory toolbox (ectb) to evaluate left ventricular ejection fraction (lvef), end-systolic (esv), and end-diastolic volumes (edvs) by gated mpi czt-spect. 48 patients underwent mpi czt-spect and cmr 6 weeks after stemi, lv parameters were measured with four softwares at mpi czt-spect vs cmr. we evaluated (i) concordance and correlation between mpi czt-spect and cmr, (ii) concordance mpi czt-spect/cmr for the categorical evaluation of the left ventricular dysfunction, and (iii) impacts of perfusion defects > 3 segments on concordance. lvef: lcc qgs/cmr = 0.81 [+ 2.2% (± 18%)], lcc mx/cmr = 0.83 [+ 1% (± 17.5%)], lcc 4dm/cmr = 0.73 [+ 3.9% (± 21%)], lcc ectb/cmr = 0.69 [+ 6.6% (± 21.1%)]. esv: lcc qgs/cmr = 0.90 [− 8 ml (± 40 ml)], lcc mx/cmr = 0.90 [− 9 ml (± 36 ml)], lcc 4dm/cmr = 0.89 [+ 4 ml (± 45 ml)], lcc ectb/cmr = 0.87 [− 3 ml (± 45 ml)]. edv: lcc qgs/cmr = 0.70 [− 16 ml (± 67 ml)], lcc mx/cmr = 0.68 [− 21 ml (± 63 ml], lcc 4dm/cmr = 0.72 [+ 9 ml (± 73 ml)], lcc ectb/cmr = 0.69 [+ 10 ml (± 70 ml)]. qgs and mx were the two best-performing softwares to evaluate lvef after recent stemi.