Value of PET ECG gating in a cross-validation study of cardiac function assessment by PET/MR imaging

Background This work investigated the impact of different cardiac gating methods on the assessment of cardiac function by FDG-PET in a cross-validation PET/MR study. Methods and results MR- and PET-based left ventricular end-diastolic, end-systolic volumes, and ejection fraction (EDV, ESV, and EF) were delineated in 30 patients with a PET/MR examination. Cardiac PET imaging was performed using three ECG gating methods: fixed number of gates per beat (STD), STD with a beat acceptance window (STD-BR), and fixed gate duration (FW). High MR-PET correlations were found in all the values. ESVs correlated better than EDVs and EFs: Pearson's r coefficient [0.92, 0.92, 0.92] in ESV vs [0.75, 0.81, 0.80] in EDV and [0.79, 0.91, 0.87] in EF, for each method [STD, STD-BR, FW]. Biases with respect to MRI for all the evaluated PET methods were less than 13% in EDV, 5% in ESV, and 14% in EF, but with wide limits of agreements, in the range (59-68)% in EDV, (65-70)% in ESV, and (49-71)% in EF. STD showed the strongest disagreement, while there were no marked differences between STD-BR and FW. Conclusion Based on these findings, PET- and MR-based cardiac function parameters were highly correlated but in substantial disagreement with variabilities introduced by the selected PET ECG gating method. The most significant differences were associated with the ECG gating method susceptible to highly irregular beats, while similar performance was observed in the methods using uniform adjustment of gates width per beat with the beat acceptance window, and fixed gate width along all the beats. Thus, strict quality controls of R peak detection are needed to minimize its impact on the function assessment.

Automated summary

This study investigated the impact of different cardiac gating methods on the assessment of cardiac function using FDG-PET. The results showed that the PET and MR-based cardiac function parameters were highly correlated, but the selected PET ECG gating method introduced variabilities and led to substantial disagreement in the assessment.