OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the ability of quantitative perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess the hemodynamic significance of coronary artery disease (CAD) compared with well-established anatomic and physiologic techniques. BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is considered by many investigators to be a reliable stenosis-specific method to determine hemodynamically significant CAD. Quantitative perfusion CMR is a promising noninvasive approach to detect CAD but has yet to be validated against FFR. METHODS: This is a prospective study in patients with suspected CAD who underwent coronary angiography, FFR, and CMR assessments. The quantitative myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) was calculated in 720 myocardial sectors (8 sectors/slice). The MPR was calculated from the ratio between stress and rest myocardial flow based on signal intensity time curves using deconvolution analysis. Stress was simulated with adenosine for both FFR and MPR. The MPR assessments were compared to FFR (n = 44 coronary segments) and quantitative coronary angiography (n = 108 segments) in the corresponding coronary territories. RESULTS: The MPR was 1.54 +/- 0.36 in segments with FFR < or =0.75 (n = 14) and 2.11 +/- 0.68 in those with FFR >0.75 (n = 30; p = 0.0054). An MPR cutoff of 2.04 was 92.9% (95% CI 77.9 to 100.0) sensitive and 56.7% (95% CI 32.8 to 80.6) specific in predicting a coronary segment with FFR < or =0.75. The MPR was 1.54 +/- 0.49 in coronary segments with > or =50% diameter stenosis (DS) (n = 47) and 2.13 +/- 0.80 in segments with <50% DS (n = 61; p < 0.001). An MPR cutoff of 2.04 was 85.1% (95% CI 71.1 to 99.2) sensitive and 49.2% (95% CI 33.6 to 64.8) specific in predicting CAD with > or =50% DS. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative perfusion CMR is a safe noninvasive test that represents a stenosis-specific alternative to determine the hemodynamic significance of CAD.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the ability of quantitative perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess the hemodynamic significance of coronary artery disease (CAD) compared with well-established anatomic and physiologic techniques. BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is considered by many investigators to be a reliable stenosis-specific method to determine hemodynamically significant CAD. Quantitative perfusion CMR is a promising noninvasive approach to detect CAD but has yet to be validated against FFR. METHODS: This is a prospective study in patients with suspected CAD who underwent coronary angiography, FFR, and CMR assessments. The quantitative myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) was calculated in 720 myocardial sectors (8 sectors/slice). The MPR was calculated from the ratio between stress and rest myocardial flow based on signal intensity time curves using deconvolution analysis. Stress was simulated with adenosine for both FFR and MPR. The MPR assessments were compared to FFR (n = 44 coronary segments) and quantitative coronary angiography (n = 108 segments) in the corresponding coronary territories. RESULTS: The MPR was 1.54 +/- 0.36 in segments with FFR < or =0.75 (n = 14) and 2.11 +/- 0.68 in those with FFR >0.75 (n = 30; p = 0.0054). An MPR cutoff of 2.04 was 92.9% (95% CI 77.9 to 100.0) sensitive and 56.7% (95% CI 32.8 to 80.6) specific in predicting a coronary segment with FFR < or =0.75. The MPR was 1.54 +/- 0.49 in coronary segments with > or =50% diameter stenosis (DS) (n = 47) and 2.13 +/- 0.80 in segments with <50% DS (n = 61; p < 0.001). An MPR cutoff of 2.04 was 85.1% (95% CI 71.1 to 99.2) sensitive and 49.2% (95% CI 33.6 to 64.8) specific in predicting CAD with > or =50% DS. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative perfusion CMR is a safe noninvasive test that represents a stenosis-specific alternative to determine the hemodynamic significance of CAD.
Authors: Andreas Schuster; Niloufar Zarinabad; Masaki Ishida; Matthew Sinclair; Jeroen Phm van den Wijngaard; Geraint Morton; Gilion Ltf Hautvast; Boris Bigalke; Pepijn van Horssen; Nicolas Smith; Jos Ae Spaan; Maria Siebes; Amedeo Chiribiri; Eike Nagel Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Federico E Mordini; Tariq Haddad; Li-Yueh Hsu; Peter Kellman; Tracy B Lowrey; Anthony H Aletras; W Patricia Bandettini; Andrew E Arai Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-01
Authors: Anil K Attili; Andreas Schuster; Eike Nagel; Johan H C Reiber; Rob J van der Geest Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.357