Literature DB >> 22390914

MR-IMPACT II: Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary artery disease Trial: perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs. single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicentre, multivendor trial.

Juerg Schwitter1, Christian M Wacker, Norbert Wilke, Nidal Al-Saadi, Ekkehart Sauer, Kalman Huettle, Stefan O Schönberg, Andreas Luchner, Oliver Strohm, Hakan Ahlstrom, Thorsten Dill, Nadja Hoebel, Tamas Simor.   

Abstract

AIMS: Perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has emerged as a potential alternative to single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) to assess myocardial ischaemia non-invasively. The goal was to compare the diagnostic performance of perfusion-CMR and SPECT for the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD) using conventional X-ray coronary angiography (CXA) as the reference standard. METHODS AND
RESULTS: In this multivendor trial, 533 patients, eligible for CXA or SPECT, were enrolled in 33 centres (USA and Europe) with 515 patients receiving MR contrast medium. Single-photon emission computed tomography and CXA were performed within 4 weeks before or after CMR in all patients. The prevalence of CAD in the sample was 49%. Drop-out rates for CMR and SPECT were 5.6 and 3.7%, respectively (P = 0.21). The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of CMR vs. SPECT for both sensitivity and specificity for the detection of CAD. Readers were blinded vs. clinical data, CXA, and imaging results. As a secondary endpoint, the safety profile of the CMR examination was evaluated. For CMR and SPECT, the sensitivity scores were 0.67 and 0.59, respectively, with the lower confidence level for the difference of +0.02, indicating superiority of CMR over SPECT. The specificity scores for CMR and SPECT were 0.61 and 0.72, respectively (lower confidence level for the difference: -0.17), indicating inferiority of CMR vs. SPECT. No severe adverse events occurred in the 515 patients.
CONCLUSION: In this large multicentre, multivendor study, the sensitivity of perfusion-CMR to detect CAD was superior to SPECT, while its specificity was inferior to SPECT. Cardiac magnetic resonance is a safe alternative to SPECT to detect perfusion deficits in CAD.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22390914     DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Heart J        ISSN: 0195-668X            Impact factor:   29.983


  130 in total

Review 1.  Established and emerging cardiovascular magnetic resonance techniques for the assessment of stable coronary heart disease and acute coronary syndromes.

Authors:  David P Ripley; Manish Motwani; Sven Plein; John P Greenwood
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2014-10

Review 2.  Review of cardiovascular imaging in the journal of nuclear cardiology in 2015. Part 1 of 2: Plaque imaging, positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance.

Authors:  Wael A AlJaroudi; Fadi G Hage
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 5.952

3.  The incremental impact of cardiac MRI on clinical decision-making.

Authors:  Adil Rajwani; Michael J Stewart; James D Richardson; Nicholas M Child; Neil Maredia
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 4.  Advances in stress cardiac MRI and computed tomography.

Authors:  Yasmin S Hamirani; Christopher M Kramer
Journal:  Future Cardiol       Date:  2013-09

5.  Going with the flow: how reproducible are cardiac magnetic resonance measurements of myocardial perfusion?

Authors:  John Biglands; Sven Plein
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  [Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: from imaging to diagnosis].

Authors:  M Gutberlet
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 0.635

7.  Peri-infarct ischaemia assessed by cardiovascular MRI: comparison with quantitative perfusion single photon emission CT imaging.

Authors:  E Gerbaud; H Cochet; E Bullier; C Ragot; S H Gilbert; H Douard; Y Pucheu; F Laurent; P Coste; L Bordenave; M Montaudon
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 8.  Imaging the myocardial ischemic cascade.

Authors:  Arthur E Stillman; Matthijs Oudkerk; David A Bluemke; Menko Jan de Boer; Jens Bremerich; Ernest V Garcia; Matthias Gutberlet; Pim van der Harst; W Gregory Hundley; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Dirkjan Kuijpers; Raymond Y Kwong; Eike Nagel; Stamatios Lerakis; John Oshinski; Jean-François Paul; Riemer H J A Slart; Vinod Thourani; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Bernd J Wintersperger
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 2.357

9.  Diagnostic accuracy of stress perfusion CMR in comparison with quantitative coronary angiography: fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and qualitative assessment.

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

10.  Integrated cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with coronary magnetic resonance angiography, stress-perfusion, and delayed-enhancement imaging for the detection of occult coronary artery disease in asymptomatic individuals.

Authors:  Kyoung Doo Song; Sung Mok Kim; Yeon Hyeon Choe; Wooin Jung; Sang-Chol Lee; Sung-A Chang; Yoon Ho Choi; Jidong Sung
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 2.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.