OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and diagnostic accuracy of adenosine-stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion imaging early after acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) compared with standard exercise tolerance testing (ETT). DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross sectional observational study in a university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: 35 patients admitted with first acute STEMI. INTERVENTIONS: All patients underwent a CMR imaging protocol which included rest and adenosine-stress perfusion, viability, and cardiac functional assessment. All patients also had an ETT (modified Bruce protocol) and x ray coronary angiography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Safety and diagnostic accuracy of adenosine-stress perfusion CMR vs ETT early after STEMI in identifying patients with significant coronary stenosis (>or=70%) and the need for coronary revascularisation. Also, to determine if CMR can distinguish between ischaemia in the peri-infarct zone and ischaemia in remote myocardium. RESULTS: CMR imaging was well tolerated (all patients completed the protocol) and no complications occurred. CMR was more sensitive (86% vs 48%, p = 0.0074) and more specific than ETT (100% vs 50%, p<0.0001) for detecting significant coronary stenosis, and more sensitive for predicting revascularisation (94% vs 56%, p = 0.039). Inducible ischaemia in the infarct related artery territory was seen in 21 of 35 patients and was associated with smaller infarct size and less transmurality of infarction. CONCLUSIONS: Adenosine-stress CMR imaging is safe early after acute STEMI and identifies patients with significant coronary stenosis more accurately than ETT.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and diagnostic accuracy of adenosine-stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion imaging early after acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) compared with standard exercise tolerance testing (ETT). DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross sectional observational study in a university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: 35 patients admitted with first acute STEMI. INTERVENTIONS: All patients underwent a CMR imaging protocol which included rest and adenosine-stress perfusion, viability, and cardiac functional assessment. All patients also had an ETT (modified Bruce protocol) and x ray coronary angiography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Safety and diagnostic accuracy of adenosine-stress perfusion CMR vs ETT early after STEMI in identifying patients with significant coronary stenosis (>or=70%) and the need for coronary revascularisation. Also, to determine if CMR can distinguish between ischaemia in the peri-infarct zone and ischaemia in remote myocardium. RESULTS: CMR imaging was well tolerated (all patients completed the protocol) and no complications occurred. CMR was more sensitive (86% vs 48%, p = 0.0074) and more specific than ETT (100% vs 50%, p<0.0001) for detecting significant coronary stenosis, and more sensitive for predicting revascularisation (94% vs 56%, p = 0.039). Inducible ischaemia in the infarct related artery territory was seen in 21 of 35 patients and was associated with smaller infarct size and less transmurality of infarction. CONCLUSIONS:Adenosine-stress CMR imaging is safe early after acute STEMI and identifies patients with significant coronary stenosis more accurately than ETT.
Authors: Khaled Alfakih; Sven Plein; Holger Thiele; Tim Jones; John P Ridgway; Mohan U Sivananthan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: D Hasdai; S Behar; L Wallentin; N Danchin; A K Gitt; E Boersma; P M Fioretti; M L Simoons; A Battler Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Anja Wagner; Heiko Mahrholdt; Thomas A Holly; Michael D Elliott; Matthias Regenfus; Michele Parker; Francis J Klocke; Robert O Bonow; Raymond J Kim; Robert M Judd Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-02-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: John J Mahmarian; Leslee J Shaw; Gerald H Olszewski; Bradley K Pounds; Maria E Frias; Craig M Pratt Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: N Hamouratidis; N Katsaliakis; F Manoudis; K Lazaridis; T Tselegaridis; V Stravelas; E Simeonidou; S Roussis Journal: Angiology Date: 1991-09 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Elliott M Antman; Daniel T Anbe; Paul Wayne Armstrong; Eric R Bates; Lee A Green; Mary Hand; Judith S Hochman; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Gervasio A Lamas; Charles J Mullany; Joseph P Ornato; David L Pearle; Michael A Sloan; Sidney C Smith Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-08-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Raymond Y Kwong; Adam E Schussheim; Suresh Rekhraj; Anthony H Aletras; Nancy Geller; Janice Davis; Timothy F Christian; Robert S Balaban; Andrew E Arai Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-02-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Erica Dall'Armellina; Theodoros D Karamitsos; Stefan Neubauer; Robin P Choudhury Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Mark Doyle; Gerald M Pohost; C Noel Bairey Merz; Leslee J Shaw; George Sopko; William J Rogers; Barry L Sharaf; Carl J Pepine; Diane A Vido-Thompson; Geetha Rayarao; Lindsey Tauxe; Sheryl F Kelsey; Douglas Mc Nair; Robert W Biederman Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2013-12
Authors: Dennis T L Wong; James D Richardson; Rishi Puri; Adam J Nelson; Angela G Bertaso; Karen S L Teo; Matthew I Worthley; Stephen G Worthley Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-03-25 Impact factor: 5.315