BACKGROUND: Dobutamine stress MR (DSMR) is highly accurate for the detection of inducible wall motion abnormalities (IWMAs). Adenosine has a more favorable safety profile and is well established for the assessment of myocardial perfusion. We evaluated the diagnostic value of IWMAs during dobutamine and adenosine stress MR and adenosine MR perfusion compared with invasive coronary angiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-nine consecutive patients (suspected or known coronary disease, no history of prior myocardial infarction) scheduled for cardiac catheterization underwent cardiac MR (1.5 T). After 4 minutes of adenosine infusion (140 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) for 6 minutes), wall motion was assessed (steady-state free precession), and subsequently perfusion scans (3-slice turbo field echo-echo planar imaging; 0.05 mmol/kg Gd-BOPTA) were performed. After a 15-minute break, rest perfusion was imaged, followed by standard DSMR/atropine stress MR. Wall motion was classified as pathological if > or =1 segment showed IWMAs. The transmural extent of inducible perfusion deficits (<25%, 25% to 50%, 51% to 75%, and >75%) was used to grade segmental perfusion. Quantitative coronary angiography was performed with significant stenosis defined as >50% diameter stenosis. Fifty-three patients (67%) had coronary artery stenoses >50%; sensitivity and specificity for detection by dobutamine and adenosine stress and adenosine perfusion were 89% and 80%, 40% and 96%, and 91% and 62%, respectively. Adenosine IWMAs were seen only in segments with >75% transmural perfusion deficit. CONCLUSIONS: DSMR is superior to adenosine stress for the induction of IWMAs in patients with significant coronary artery disease. Visual assessment of adenosine stress perfusion is sensitive with a low specificity, whereas adenosine stress MR wall motion is highly specific because it identifies only patients with high-grade perfusion deficits. Thus, DSMR is the method of choice for current state-of-the-art treatment regimens to detect ischemia in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease but no history of prior myocardial infarction.
BACKGROUND:Dobutamine stress MR (DSMR) is highly accurate for the detection of inducible wall motion abnormalities (IWMAs). Adenosine has a more favorable safety profile and is well established for the assessment of myocardial perfusion. We evaluated the diagnostic value of IWMAs during dobutamine and adenosine stress MR and adenosine MR perfusion compared with invasive coronary angiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-nine consecutive patients (suspected or known coronary disease, no history of prior myocardial infarction) scheduled for cardiac catheterization underwent cardiac MR (1.5 T). After 4 minutes of adenosine infusion (140 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) for 6 minutes), wall motion was assessed (steady-state free precession), and subsequently perfusion scans (3-slice turbo field echo-echo planar imaging; 0.05 mmol/kg Gd-BOPTA) were performed. After a 15-minute break, rest perfusion was imaged, followed by standard DSMR/atropine stress MR. Wall motion was classified as pathological if > or =1 segment showed IWMAs. The transmural extent of inducible perfusion deficits (<25%, 25% to 50%, 51% to 75%, and >75%) was used to grade segmental perfusion. Quantitative coronary angiography was performed with significant stenosis defined as >50% diameter stenosis. Fifty-three patients (67%) had coronary artery stenoses >50%; sensitivity and specificity for detection by dobutamine and adenosine stress and adenosine perfusion were 89% and 80%, 40% and 96%, and 91% and 62%, respectively. Adenosine IWMAs were seen only in segments with >75% transmural perfusion deficit. CONCLUSIONS:DSMR is superior to adenosine stress for the induction of IWMAs in patients with significant coronary artery disease. Visual assessment of adenosine stress perfusion is sensitive with a low specificity, whereas adenosine stress MR wall motion is highly specific because it identifies only patients with high-grade perfusion deficits. Thus, DSMR is the method of choice for current state-of-the-art treatment regimens to detect ischemia in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease but no history of prior myocardial infarction.
Authors: W Gregory Hundley; David A Bluemke; J Paul Finn; Scott D Flamm; Mark A Fogel; Matthias G Friedrich; Vincent B Ho; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Christopher M Kramer; Warren J Manning; Manesh Patel; Gerald M Pohost; Arthur E Stillman; Richard D White; Pamela K Woodard Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: W Gregory Hundley; David A Bluemke; J Paul Finn; Scott D Flamm; Mark A Fogel; Matthias G Friedrich; Vincent B Ho; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Christopher M Kramer; Warren J Manning; Manesh Patel; Gerald M Pohost; Arthur E Stillman; Richard D White; Pamela K Woodard Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Rolf Gebker; M Frick; C Jahnke; A Berger; C Schneeweis; R Manka; S Kelle; C Klein; B Schnackenburg; E Fleck; I Paetsch Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-12-14 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Konstantin Nikolaou; Javier Sanz; Michael Poon; Bernd J Wintersperger; Bernd Ohnesorge; Teresa Rius; Zahi A Fayad; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-03-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J D Schuijf; D Poldermans; L J Shaw; J W Jukema; H J Lamb; A de Roos; W Wijns; E E van der Wall; J J Bax Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: J D Schuijf; L J Shaw; W Wijns; H J Lamb; D Poldermans; A de Roos; E E van der Wall; J J Bax Journal: Heart Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.994