Table 1.
Comparison between LV-functional parameters as calculated by cine MRI and FDG-PET for different study subgroups
|
HC + DCM + ICM |
HC + DCM |
ICM |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cine MRI | FDG-PET | Cine MRI | FDG-PET | Cine MRI | FDG-PET | ||
| EDV (μL) | 125 ± 80 | 72 ± 37* | 63 ± 11 | 46 ± 4* | 195 ± 63 | 103 ± 35* | |
| Bias | 52 | 17 | 92 | ||||
| LoA | −44 to 149 | −3 to 37 | 5 to 180 | ||||
| ESV (μL) | 96 ± 77 | 42 ± 32* | 38 ± 14 | 20 ± 6* | 163 ± 63 | 67 ± 31* | |
| Bias | 54 | 18 | 96 | ||||
| LoA | −47 to 155 | 0 to 36 | 3 to 190 | ||||
| LVEF (%) | 31 ± 16 | 48 ± 15* | 42 ± 14 | 57 ± 13* | 18 ± 7 | 37 ± 10* | |
| Bias | −17 | −15 | −19 | ||||
| LoA | −30 to −4 | −26 to −5 | −34 to −5 | ||||
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation for the comparison of FDG-PET with the reference method cine MRI. Furthermore the corresponding biases and limits of agreement (LoA) calculated from Bland-Altman plots are presented. *Student's t test revealed a statistically significant difference.