OBJECTIVE: The use of stress cardiovascular MR (CMR) to evaluate myocardial ischaemia has increased significantly over recent years. We aimed to assess the indications, incidental findings, tolerance, safety and accuracy of stress CMR in routine clinical practice. METHODS: We retrospectively examined all stress CMR studies performed at our tertiary referral centre over a 20-month period. Patients were scanned at 1.5 T, using a standardised protocol with routine imaging for late gadolinium enhancement. Angiograms of patients were assessed by an interventional cardiologist blinded to the CMR data. RESULTS: 654 patients were scanned (mean age 65±29 years; 63 inpatients; 9.6%). 14% of patients had incidental extracardiac findings, the commonest being liver or renal cysts (6%) and pulmonary nodules (4%). 639 patients (97.7%) received intravenous adenosine, 10 received intravenous dobutamine and 5 patients had both. Of the 15 patients who received dobutamine, 12 had no side-effects/complications, 2 experienced nausea and 1 chest tightness. Of the 644 patients who received adenosine, 43% experienced minor symptoms, 1% had transient heart block and 0.2% had severe bronchospasm requiring termination of infusion. There were no cases of hospitalisation or myocardial infarction. 241 patients also had coronary angiography. For detecting at least moderate stenosis of ≥50%, sensitivity was 86%, specificity 98% and accuracy 89%. For detecting severe stenoses of ≥70%, sensitivity was 91%, specificity 86% and overall accuracy 90%. These results compare very favourably with previous smaller research studies and meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: We conclude that stress CMR, with adenosine as the main stress agent, is well tolerated, safe and accurate in routine clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: The use of stress cardiovascular MR (CMR) to evaluate myocardial ischaemia has increased significantly over recent years. We aimed to assess the indications, incidental findings, tolerance, safety and accuracy of stress CMR in routine clinical practice. METHODS: We retrospectively examined all stress CMR studies performed at our tertiary referral centre over a 20-month period. Patients were scanned at 1.5 T, using a standardised protocol with routine imaging for late gadolinium enhancement. Angiograms of patients were assessed by an interventional cardiologist blinded to the CMR data. RESULTS: 654 patients were scanned (mean age 65±29 years; 63 inpatients; 9.6%). 14% of patients had incidental extracardiac findings, the commonest being liver or renal cysts (6%) and pulmonary nodules (4%). 639 patients (97.7%) received intravenous adenosine, 10 received intravenous dobutamine and 5 patients had both. Of the 15 patients who received dobutamine, 12 had no side-effects/complications, 2 experienced nausea and 1 chest tightness. Of the 644 patients who received adenosine, 43% experienced minor symptoms, 1% had transient heart block and 0.2% had severe bronchospasm requiring termination of infusion. There were no cases of hospitalisation or myocardial infarction. 241 patients also had coronary angiography. For detecting at least moderate stenosis of ≥50%, sensitivity was 86%, specificity 98% and accuracy 89%. For detecting severe stenoses of ≥70%, sensitivity was 91%, specificity 86% and overall accuracy 90%. These results compare very favourably with previous smaller research studies and meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: We conclude that stress CMR, with adenosine as the main stress agent, is well tolerated, safe and accurate in routine clinical practice.
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: Peter Bernhardt; Michael Steffens; Klaus Kleinertz; Roland Morell; Rainer Budde; Roman Leischik; Alfred Krämer; Ulrich Overhoff; Oliver Strohm Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2006 Impact factor: 5.364
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: Carsten Rickers; Norbert M Wilke; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Susan A Casey; Prasad Panse; Neeta Panse; Jochen Weil; Andrey G Zenovich; Barry J Maron Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-08-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Egidia E M van Ginneken; Hal Drooglever-Fortuyn; Paul Smits; Gerard A Rongen Journal: J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.105
Authors: Adrian S H Cheng; Tammy J Pegg; Theodoros D Karamitsos; Nick Searle; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Robin P Choudhury; Adrian P Banning; Stefan Neubauer; Matthew D Robson; Joseph B Selvanayagam Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-06-11 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Nicole M Bhave; Benjamin H Freed; Chattanong Yodwut; Denise Kolanczyk; Karin Dill; Roberto M Lang; Victor Mor-Avi; Amit R Patel Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2012-12-28 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Kim-Lien Nguyen; W Patricia Bandettini; Sujata Shanbhag; Steve W Leung; Joel R Wilson; Andrew E Arai Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: John S M Houghton; Sarah Nduwayo; Andrew T O Nickinson; Tanya J Payne; Sue Sterland; Mintu Nath; Laura J Gray; Greg S McMahon; Harjeet S Rayt; Sally J Singh; Thompson G Robinson; Simon P Conroy; Victoria J Haunton; Gerry P McCann; Matthew J Bown; Robert S M Davies; Rob D Sayers Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Slomi Gupta; Parimala Prasanna Simha; Naveen G Singh; P S Nagaraja; Ashita Barthur; Kartik Ganga; V Prabhakar Journal: Ann Card Anaesth Date: 2022 Jul-Sep