AIMS: Quantitative analysis of rest-stress myocardial perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can provide assessments of regional myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR). The purpose of this study was to compare regional MPR determined by myocardial perfusion MRI with coronary flow reserve (CFR) by intracoronary Doppler flow wire. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) were studied. Average peak velocity was measured by Doppler flow wire in the resting state and during adenosine triphosphate (ATP) stress in 36 coronary arteries. CFR measurements for each patient were performed in the culprit and one non-culprit non-stenotic artery. First-pass, contrast-enhanced myocardial perfusion MR images were obtained in the resting state and during ATP stress within the week before the Doppler wire procedure. Regional myocardial blood flow (MBF) was quantified in 16 myocardial segments by analysing arterial input and myocardial output using a Patlak plot method. MPR was calculated as stress MBF divided by rest MBF. CFR measured by Doppler flow wire was compared with MPR in the myocardial segments corresponding to vessel territories. The average MPR measured by perfusion MRI was 1.77 +/- 0.62 for the culprit arteries and 3.45 +/- 0.78 for the non-culprit arteries, respectively (P < 0.001). The averaged CFR by Doppler flow wire was 1.72 +/- 0.44 in the culprit arteries and 3.14 +/- 0.74 in the non-culprit arteries, respectively (P < 0.001). For both culprit and non-culprit vessel groups, significant direct correlations were observed between MR assessments of MPR and Doppler assessments of CFR (culprit artery: R = 0.87, Non-culprit artery: R = 0.86) On Bland-Altman analysis, the mean differences between MPR determined by myocardial perfusion MRI and CFR measured by Doppler wire were 0.05 in culprit arteries (95% limit of agreement; -0.65 to 0.56) and 0.36 in non-culprit arteries (95% limit of agreement; -1.24 to 0.44). The sensitivity and specificity of MR measurement of MPR for predicting physiologically significant reduction of Doppler CFR (<2) was 88% (95% CI 61.7-98.5) and 90% (95% CI 68.3-98.8), respectively. CONCLUSION: The current results using Doppler flow wire as a reference method demonstrated that quantitative analysis of stress-rest myocardial perfusion MRI can provide a non-invasive assessment of reduced MPR in patients with CAD.
AIMS: Quantitative analysis of rest-stress myocardial perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can provide assessments of regional myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR). The purpose of this study was to compare regional MPR determined by myocardial perfusion MRI with coronary flow reserve (CFR) by intracoronary Doppler flow wire. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) were studied. Average peak velocity was measured by Doppler flow wire in the resting state and during adenosine triphosphate (ATP) stress in 36 coronary arteries. CFR measurements for each patient were performed in the culprit and one non-culprit non-stenotic artery. First-pass, contrast-enhanced myocardial perfusion MR images were obtained in the resting state and during ATP stress within the week before the Doppler wire procedure. Regional myocardial blood flow (MBF) was quantified in 16 myocardial segments by analysing arterial input and myocardial output using a Patlak plot method. MPR was calculated as stress MBF divided by rest MBF. CFR measured by Doppler flow wire was compared with MPR in the myocardial segments corresponding to vessel territories. The average MPR measured by perfusion MRI was 1.77 +/- 0.62 for the culprit arteries and 3.45 +/- 0.78 for the non-culprit arteries, respectively (P < 0.001). The averaged CFR by Doppler flow wire was 1.72 +/- 0.44 in the culprit arteries and 3.14 +/- 0.74 in the non-culprit arteries, respectively (P < 0.001). For both culprit and non-culprit vessel groups, significant direct correlations were observed between MR assessments of MPR and Doppler assessments of CFR (culprit artery: R = 0.87, Non-culprit artery: R = 0.86) On Bland-Altman analysis, the mean differences between MPR determined by myocardial perfusion MRI and CFR measured by Doppler wire were 0.05 in culprit arteries (95% limit of agreement; -0.65 to 0.56) and 0.36 in non-culprit arteries (95% limit of agreement; -1.24 to 0.44). The sensitivity and specificity of MR measurement of MPR for predicting physiologically significant reduction of Doppler CFR (<2) was 88% (95% CI 61.7-98.5) and 90% (95% CI 68.3-98.8), respectively. CONCLUSION: The current results using Doppler flow wire as a reference method demonstrated that quantitative analysis of stress-rest myocardial perfusion MRI can provide a non-invasive assessment of reduced MPR in patients with CAD.
Authors: J G J Groothuis; A M Beek; M R Meijerink; S L Brinckman; M B M Hofman; A C van Rossum Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.380
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: Chrisandra L Shufelt; Louise E J Thomson; Pavel Goykhman; Megha Agarwal; Puja K Mehta; Tara Sedlak; Ning Li; Edward Gill; Bruce Samuels; Babak Azabal; Saibal Kar; Kamlesh Kothawade; Margo Minissian; Piotr Slomka; Daniel S Berman; C Noel Bairey Merz Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2013-09
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