Literature DB >> 17868810

Prognostic value of dipyridamole stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.

Vicente Bodi1, Juan Sanchis, Maria P Lopez-Lereu, Julio Nunez, Luis Mainar, Jose V Monmeneu, Oliver Husser, Eloy Dominguez, Francisco J Chorro, Angel Llacer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the prognostic value of dipyridamole stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in patients with chest pain and known or suspected coronary artery disease.
BACKGROUND: Stress perfusion CMR has been incorporated in daily practice. Data on its prognostic value are preliminary.
METHODS: Dipyridamole stress CMR was performed in 420 patients with chest pain and known or suspected coronary artery disease. The extent (number of segments according to the 17-segment model) of abnormal wall motion at rest (AWM-rest), abnormal wall motion with dipyridamole (AWM-D), perfusion deficit (at stress first-pass perfusion imaging), and delayed enhancement (at late enhancement imaging) were analyzed.
RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 420 days, 41 major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including 9 cardiac deaths, 14 nonfatal myocardial infarctions, and 18 readmissions for unstable angina with documented abnormal angiography, were documented. The MACE were more frequent in patients with significant (>1 segment) AWM-rest (22% vs. 5%), AWM-D (21% vs. 4%), perfusion deficit (17% vs. 5%), and delayed enhancement (20% vs. 6%; p <0.0001 in all cases). In a multivariate analysis adjusted for baseline characteristics, the extent of AWM-D was independently related to MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.24] per segment; p = 0.0006) and to major events (cardiac death or nonfatal myocardial infarction; HR 1.15 [95% CI 1.05 to 1.26] per segment; p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: Dipyridamole stress CMR is useful for predicting the outcome of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17868810     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.06.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  35 in total

1.  Head to head comparison of quantitative versus visual analysis of contrast CMR in the setting of myocardial stunning after STEMI: implications on late systolic function and patient outcome.

Authors:  Oliver Husser; Vicente Bodi; Juan Sanchis; Julio Nunez; Luis Mainar; Pilar Merlos; Maria P Lopez-Lereu; Jose V Monmeneu; Fabian Chaustre; Eva Rumiz; Günter A J Riegger; Francisco J Chorro; Angel Llacer
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2010-02-20       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  Dose response of the intravascular contrast agent gadofosveset trisodium in MR perfusion imaging of the myocardium using a quantitative evaluation.

Authors:  Sebastian Niedermayer; Steven Sourbron; Maria Prompona; Clemens Cyran; Maximilian Reiser; Armin Huber
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 3.  Assessment of myocardial ischemia with cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

Authors:  Bobak Heydari; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Raymond Y Kwong
Journal:  Prog Cardiovasc Dis       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 8.194

Review 4.  Evaluation of ischemic heart disease.

Authors:  Dipan J Shah; Han W Kim; Raymond J Kim
Journal:  Heart Fail Clin       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.179

Review 5.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in heart failure.

Authors:  Theodoros D Karamitsos; Stefan Neubauer
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.931

6.  Interpreting the change in left ventricular ejection fraction during pharmacological coronary vasodilation: Proceed with caution!

Authors:  Steven Port
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 5.952

7.  Does ischemia burden in stable coronary artery disease effectively identify revascularization candidates? Ischemia burden in stable coronary artery disease does not effectively identify revascularization candidates.

Authors:  Harmony R Reynolds; Michael H Picard; Judith S Hochman
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 7.792

8.  Stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provides effective cardiac risk reclassification in patients with known or suspected stable coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Ravi Shah; Bobak Heydari; Otavio Coelho-Filho; Venkatesh L Murthy; Siddique Abbasi; Jiazhuo H Feng; Michael Pencina; Tomas G Neilan; Judith L Meadows; Sanjeev Francis; Ron Blankstein; Michael Steigner; Marcelo di Carli; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Raymond Y Kwong
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 29.690

9.  Function of remote non-infarcted myocardium after STEMI: analysis with cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

Authors:  Oliver Husser; Fabian Chaustre; Juan Sanchis; Julio Nunez; Jose V Monmeneu; Maria P Lopez-Lereu; Clara Bonanad; Cristina Gomez; Ricardo Oltra; Angel Llacer; Günter A J Riegger; Francisco J Chorro; Vicente Bodi
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 2.357

10.  Prognostic value of dipyridamole stress cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease: a mid-term follow-up study.

Authors:  Gianluca Pontone; Daniele Andreini; Erika Bertella; Monica Loguercio; Marco Guglielmo; Andrea Baggiano; Giovanni Donato Aquaro; Saima Mushtaq; Sara Salerni; Paola Gripari; Carmen Rossi; Chiara Segurini; Edoardo Conte; Virginia Beltrama; Marta Giovannardi; Fabrizio Veglia; Andrea Igoren Guaricci; Antonio L Bartorelli; Piergiuseppe Agostoni; Mauro Pepi; Pier Giorgio Masci
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.