OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of the blood-pool contrast agent gadofosveset trisodium on diagnostic accuracy of whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography (CMRA) at 1.5 Tesla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease underwent free-breathing whole-heart CMRA at 1.5 Tesla. CMRA was performed with a T2-prepared steady-state free precession sequence (unenhanced CMRA) and an inversion-recovery-prepared steady-state free precession sequence after administration of gadofosveset trisodium (contrast-enhanced CMRA). Two readers independently performed a per-segment evaluation of CMRA (8 proximal and mid coronary segments) for detection of significant stenosis (≥50%) using invasive coronary angiography as reference. Disagreement was settled by consensus reading and interobserver variability was assessed using an unweighted kappa statistic. RESULTS: Whole-heart CMRA was successfully performed in 27 patients. The percentage of assessable segments was significantly lower on unenhanced CMRA compared with contrast-enhanced CMRA (Reader 1: 79% [170/216] vs. 89% [192/216], respectively; Reader 2: 73% [157/216] vs. 87% [188/216], respectively; P < 0.001). Intention-to-diagnose analysis of the consensus reading yielded sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of unenhanced versus contrast-enhanced CMRA as follows: 73.1% versus 73.1% (P = 1.0), 68.3% versus 80.2% (P = 0.002), and 68.9% versus 79.3% (P = 0.004), respectively. The kappa value for interobserver agreement was 0.61 (95% confidence interval = 0.50-0.72) for unenhanced CMRA and 0.72 (95% confidence interval = 0.62-0.82) for contrast-enhanced CMRA. CONCLUSIONS: The blood-pool contrast agent gadofosveset trisodium increased the number of assessable coronary segments on whole-heart CMRA in comparison to unenhanced whole-heart CMRA. The impact of gadofosveset trisodium on diagnostic accuracy, however, was only minor.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of the blood-pool contrast agent gadofosveset trisodium on diagnostic accuracy of whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography (CMRA) at 1.5 Tesla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease underwent free-breathing whole-heart CMRA at 1.5 Tesla. CMRA was performed with a T2-prepared steady-state free precession sequence (unenhanced CMRA) and an inversion-recovery-prepared steady-state free precession sequence after administration of gadofosveset trisodium (contrast-enhanced CMRA). Two readers independently performed a per-segment evaluation of CMRA (8 proximal and mid coronary segments) for detection of significant stenosis (≥50%) using invasive coronary angiography as reference. Disagreement was settled by consensus reading and interobserver variability was assessed using an unweighted kappa statistic. RESULTS: Whole-heart CMRA was successfully performed in 27 patients. The percentage of assessable segments was significantly lower on unenhanced CMRA compared with contrast-enhanced CMRA (Reader 1: 79% [170/216] vs. 89% [192/216], respectively; Reader 2: 73% [157/216] vs. 87% [188/216], respectively; P < 0.001). Intention-to-diagnose analysis of the consensus reading yielded sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of unenhanced versus contrast-enhanced CMRA as follows: 73.1% versus 73.1% (P = 1.0), 68.3% versus 80.2% (P = 0.002), and 68.9% versus 79.3% (P = 0.004), respectively. The kappa value for interobserver agreement was 0.61 (95% confidence interval = 0.50-0.72) for unenhanced CMRA and 0.72 (95% confidence interval = 0.62-0.82) for contrast-enhanced CMRA. CONCLUSIONS: The blood-pool contrast agent gadofosveset trisodium increased the number of assessable coronary segments on whole-heart CMRA in comparison to unenhanced whole-heart CMRA. The impact of gadofosveset trisodium on diagnostic accuracy, however, was only minor.
Authors: Michael D Hope; Thomas A Hope; Chengcheng Zhu; Farshid Faraji; Henrik Haraldsson; Karen G Ordovas; David Saloner Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ahmed M Gharib; Khaled Z Abd-Elmoniem; Vincent B Ho; Eszter Födi; Daniel A Herzka; Jacques Ohayon; Matthias Stuber; Roderic I Pettigrew Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Giovanni Di Leo; Erica Fisci; Francesco Secchi; Marco Alì; Federico Ambrogi; Luca Maria Sconfienza; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Owen C Richardson; Octavia Bane; Marietta L J Scott; Steven F Tanner; John C Waterton; Steven P Sourbron; Timothy J Carroll; David L Buckley Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 4.668