Skip to main content
. 2023 Apr 24;13:33. doi: 10.1186/s13550-023-00987-2

Table 3.

Comparison of EDV, ESV, and LVEF determined using conventional SPECT, IQ-SPECT, and CMR

IQ Conventional CMR Conventional vs. IQ Conventional vs. CMR IQ vs. CMR
(a) Normal group
EDV (mL) 87.7 ± 14.9 63.4 ± 16.3 129.7 ± 21.5

r = 0.824

P < 0.001

r = 0.883

P < 0.001

r = 0.758

P < 0.001

ESV (mL) 43.8 ± 10.0 18.1 ± 9.2 60.7 ± 11.7

r = 0.800

P < 0.001

r = 0.638

P = 0.002

r = 0.607

P = 0.005

LVEF (%) 50.6 ± 4.3 73.4 ± 8.4 53.2 ± 5.8

r = 0.652

P = 0.002

r = 0.181

P = 0.002

r = 0.652

NS

(b) Small-heart group
EDV (mL) 49.5 ± 9.6 45.9 ± 9.0 78.2 ± 18.8

r = 0.848

P < 0.001

r = 0.471

P = 0.010

r = 0.469

P = 0.010

ESV (mL) 19.2 ± 6.9 12.1 ± 6.8 28.1 ± 10.6

r = 0.779

P < 0.001

r = 0.539

P = 0.003

r = 0.408

P = 0.028

LVEF (%) 62.1 ± 7.8 75.0 ± 11.4 64.6 ± 8.8

r = 0.780

P < 0.001

r = 0.484

P = 0.007

r = 0.522

NS

Conventional conventional SPECT, CMR cardiovascular magnetic resonance, IQ IQ-SPECT, EDV end-diastolic volume, ESV end-systolic volume, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, NS not statistically significant

Data are represented as the mean ± standard deviation