PURPOSE: To compare standard of care nuclear SPECT imaging with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for emergency room (ER) patients with chest pain and intermediate probability for coronary artery disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients with chest pain, negative electrocardiogram (ECG), and negative cardiac enzymes who underwent cardiac single photon emission tomography (SPECT) within 24 h of ER admission were enrolled. Patients underwent a comprehensive cardiac MRI exam including gated cine imaging, adenosine stress and rest perfusion imaging and delayed enhancement imaging. Patients were followed for 14 +/- 4.7 months. RESULTS: Of 27 patients, 8 (30%) showed subendocardial hypoperfusion on MRI that was not detected on SPECT. These patients had a higher rate of diabetes (P = 0.01) and hypertension (P = 0.01) and a lower global myocardial perfusion reserve (P = 0.01) compared with patients with a normal cardiac MRI (n = 10). Patients with subendocardial hypoperfusion had more risk factors for cardiovascular disease (mean 4.4) compared with patients with a normal MRI (mean 2.5; P = 0.005). During the follow-up period, patients with subendocardial hypoperfusion on stress MRI were more likely to return to the ER with chest pain compared with patients who had a normal cardiac MRI (P = 0.02). Four patients did not finish the MR exam due to claustrophobia. CONCLUSION: In patients with chest pain, diabetes and hypertension, cardiac stress perfusion MRI identified diffuse subendocardial hypoperfusion defects in the ER setting not seen on cardiac SPECT, which is suspected to reflect microvascular disease. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To compare standard of care nuclear SPECT imaging with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for emergency room (ER) patients with chest pain and intermediate probability for coronary artery disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients with chest pain, negative electrocardiogram (ECG), and negative cardiac enzymes who underwent cardiac single photon emission tomography (SPECT) within 24 h of ER admission were enrolled. Patients underwent a comprehensive cardiac MRI exam including gated cine imaging, adenosine stress and rest perfusion imaging and delayed enhancement imaging. Patients were followed for 14 +/- 4.7 months. RESULTS: Of 27 patients, 8 (30%) showed subendocardial hypoperfusion on MRI that was not detected on SPECT. These patients had a higher rate of diabetes (P = 0.01) and hypertension (P = 0.01) and a lower global myocardial perfusion reserve (P = 0.01) compared with patients with a normal cardiac MRI (n = 10). Patients with subendocardial hypoperfusion had more risk factors for cardiovascular disease (mean 4.4) compared with patients with a normal MRI (mean 2.5; P = 0.005). During the follow-up period, patients with subendocardial hypoperfusion on stress MRI were more likely to return to the ER with chest pain compared with patients who had a normal cardiac MRI (P = 0.02). Four patients did not finish the MR exam due to claustrophobia. CONCLUSION: In patients with chest pain, diabetes and hypertension, cardiac stress perfusion MRI identified diffuse subendocardial hypoperfusion defects in the ER setting not seen on cardiac SPECT, which is suspected to reflect microvascular disease. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
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: Thomas K F Foo; Vincent B Ho; Manojkumar Saranathan; Liu-quan Cheng; Hajime Sakuma; Dara L Kraitchman; Katherine C Wu; David A Bluemke Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Habib A Dakik; Wayne S Hwang; Aman Jafar; Kay Kimball; Mario S Verani; John J Mahmarian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Lu Wang; Michael Jerosch-Herold; David R Jacobs; Eyal Shahar; Aaron R Folsom Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-01-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: E Nagel; H B Lehmkuhl; W Bocksch; C Klein; U Vogel; E Frantz; A Ellmer; S Dreysse; E Fleck Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-02-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ehud J Schmidt; Ronald D Watkins; Menekhem M Zviman; Michael A Guttman; Wei Wang; Henry A Halperin Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: John F Heitner; Igor Klem; Derek Rasheed; Abhinav Chandra; Han W Kim; Lowie M R Van Assche; Michele Parker; Robert M Judd; James G Jollis; Raymond J Kim Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael J Lipinski; Courtney M McVey; Jeffrey S Berger; Christopher M Kramer; Michael Salerno Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Grigorios Korosoglou; Sorin Giusca; Gitsios Gitsioudis; Christian Erbel; Hugo A Katus Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 4.566