AIMS: This prospective study was designed to determine the diagnostic value of adenosine stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) in patients referred to elective coronary angiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: Myocardial perfusion measurements at rest and adenosine stress were performed in 141 patients (105 men, 36 women, mean age 63.4 years) at 1.5 T with a Turbo Flash sequence. Stress-induced perfusion deficits were correlated to angiographic stenoses > or =75%. The overall sensitivity for CMRI depicting coronary artery disease (CAD) with relevant stenoses was 90.4%, the specificity was 77.4%, the positive predictive value was 85.9%, the negative predictive value was 84.2% and the accuracy 85.2%. Subgroup analysis was performed for 3-vessel disease (n = 44, sensitivity 92.3%, specificity 75.0%), 2-vessel disease (n = 43, sensitivity 92.6%, specificity 92.9%), 1-vessel disease (n = 27, sensitivity 93.1%, specificity 71.4%) and patients without CAD (n = 27, specificity 70.4%) as well as for patients with prior myocardial infarction (n = 44, sensitivity 92.9%, specificity 86.7%), prior coronary artery bypass surgery (n = 21, sensitivity 88.2%, specificity 66.7%), prior coronary interventions (n = 88, sensitivity 91.9%, specificity 75.0%), or diabetics (n = 27, sensitivity 90.5%, specificity 83.3%). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that stress perfusion CMRI can accurately predict relevant CAD and contributes to the identification of hemodynamic relevant stenoses in patients scheduled for coronary angiography.
AIMS: This prospective study was designed to determine the diagnostic value of adenosine stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) in patients referred to elective coronary angiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: Myocardial perfusion measurements at rest and adenosine stress were performed in 141 patients (105 men, 36 women, mean age 63.4 years) at 1.5 T with a Turbo Flash sequence. Stress-induced perfusion deficits were correlated to angiographic stenoses > or =75%. The overall sensitivity for CMRI depicting coronary artery disease (CAD) with relevant stenoses was 90.4%, the specificity was 77.4%, the positive predictive value was 85.9%, the negative predictive value was 84.2% and the accuracy 85.2%. Subgroup analysis was performed for 3-vessel disease (n = 44, sensitivity 92.3%, specificity 75.0%), 2-vessel disease (n = 43, sensitivity 92.6%, specificity 92.9%), 1-vessel disease (n = 27, sensitivity 93.1%, specificity 71.4%) and patients without CAD (n = 27, specificity 70.4%) as well as for patients with prior myocardial infarction (n = 44, sensitivity 92.9%, specificity 86.7%), prior coronary artery bypass surgery (n = 21, sensitivity 88.2%, specificity 66.7%), prior coronary interventions (n = 88, sensitivity 91.9%, specificity 75.0%), or diabetics (n = 27, sensitivity 90.5%, specificity 83.3%). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that stress perfusion CMRI can accurately predict relevant CAD and contributes to the identification of hemodynamic relevant stenoses in patients scheduled for coronary angiography.
Authors: Igor Klem; John F Heitner; Dipan J Shah; Michael H Sketch; Victor Behar; Jonathan Weinsaft; Peter Cawley; Michele Parker; Michael Elliott; Robert M Judd; Raymond J Kim Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-03-27 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Waren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Johannes Rieber; Armin Huber; Isabelle Erhard; Silvia Mueller; Michael Schweyer; Andreas Koenig; Thomas M Schiele; Karl Theisen; Uwe Siebert; Stefan O Schoenberg; Maximilian Reiser; Volker Klauss Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2006-05-23 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Sven Plein; Aleksandra Radjenovic; John P Ridgway; David Barmby; John P Greenwood; Stephen G Ball; Mohan U Sivananthan Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J Schwitter; D Nanz; S Kneifel; K Bertschinger; M Büchi; P R Knüsel; B Marincek; T F Lüscher; G K von Schulthess Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-05-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Juerg Schwitter; Christian M Wacker; Albert C van Rossum; Massimo Lombardi; Nidal Al-Saadi; Hakan Ahlstrom; Thorsten Dill; Henrik B W Larsson; Scott D Flamm; Moritz Marquardt; Lars Johansson Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2008-01-21 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: Bernhard D Klumpp; Achim Seeger; Christina Doesch; Joerg Doering; Tobias Hoevelborn; Ulrich Kramer; Michael Fenchel; Meinrad P Gawaz; Claus D Claussen; Stephan Miller Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Joe X Xie; David E Winchester; Lawrence M Phillips; Rory Hachamovitch; Daniel S Berman; Ron Blankstein; Marcelo F Di Carli; Todd D Miller; Mouaz H Al-Mallah; Leslee J Shaw Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Christian Sohns; Samuel Sossalla; Jan D Schmitto; Claudius Jacobshagen; Björn W Raab; Silvia Obenauer; Lars S Maier Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2010-02-21 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Michael Bietenbeck; Anca Florian; Zornitsa Shomanova; Claudia Meier; Ali Yilmaz Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Stamatios Lerakis; Dalton S McLean; Athanasios V Anadiotis; Matthew Janik; John N Oshinski; Nikolaos Alexopoulos; Elisa Zaragoza-Macias; Emir Veledar; Arthur E Stillman Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2009-09-21 Impact factor: 5.364