Literature DB >> 22476908

Quantification of myocardial perfusion reserve at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla: a comparison to fractional flow reserve.

Peter Bernhardt1, Thomas Walcher, Wolfgang Rottbauer, Jochen Wöhrle.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare quantitative analysis of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion at 1.5 and 3 T against fractional flow reserve (FFR) as measured invasively. FFR is considered by many investigators to be a reliable standard to determine hemodynamically significant coronary artery stenoses. Quantitative 1.5 and 3 T CMR is capable to noninvasively determine myocardial perfusion reserve, but have not been compared against each other and validated against FFR as standard reference. Patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD) underwent CMR at at both field strengths, 1.5 and 3 T, and FFR. 34 patients were included into the study. Quantitative myocardial perfusion reserve was calculated in 544 myocardial segments at 1.5 and 3 T, respectively. FFR was measured in 109 coronary arteries. FFR ≤ 0.8 was regarded relevant. Reduced FFR (≤0.8) was found in 38 coronary arteries (19 LAD, 8 LCX and 11 RCA). Receiver operator curve analysis yielded higher area under the curve for 3 T CMR in comparison to 1.5 T CMR (0.963 vs. 0.645, p < 0.001) resulting in higher sensitivity (90.5 vs. 61.9 %) and specificity (100 vs. 76.9 %). Quantitative analysis of CMR myocardial perfusion reserve at 1.5 and 3 T is capable to detect hemodynamic significance of coronary artery stenoses. Diagnostic accuracy at 3 T is to be superior to 1.5 T.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22476908     DOI: 10.1007/s10554-012-0037-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1569-5794            Impact factor:   2.357


  28 in total

Review 1.  Contributions of nuclear cardiology to diagnosis and prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease.

Authors:  G A Beller; B L Zaret
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2000-03-28       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 2.  Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association.

Authors:  Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2002-01-29       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  Double inversion black-blood fast spin-echo imaging of the human heart: a comparison between 1.5T and 3.0T.

Authors:  Robert L Greenman; John E Shirosky; Robert V Mulkern; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  Quantitative magnetic resonance perfusion imaging detects anatomic and physiologic coronary artery disease as measured by coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve.

Authors:  Marco A Costa; Steven Shoemaker; Hideki Futamatsu; Chris Klassen; Dominick J Angiolillo; Minh Nguyen; Alan Siuciak; Paul Gilmore; Martin M Zenni; Luis Guzman; Theodore A Bass; Norbert Wilke
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2007-07-23       Impact factor: 24.094

5.  Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for the functional assessment of coronary artery disease: a comparison with coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve.

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

6.  Long-term follow-up after deferral of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty of intermediate stenosis on the basis of coronary pressure measurement.

Authors:  G J Bech; B De Bruyne; H J Bonnier; J Bartunek; W Wijns; K Peels; G R Heyndrickx; J J Koolen; N H Pijls
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1998-03-15       Impact factor: 24.094

7.  Detection of cardiac small vessel disease by adenosine-stress magnetic resonance.

Authors:  Peter Bernhardt; Benny Levenson; Alexander Albrecht; Thomas Engels; Oliver Strohm
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2006-12-28       Impact factor: 4.164

8.  Assessment of myocardial perfusion in coronary artery disease by magnetic resonance: a comparison with positron emission tomography and coronary angiography.

Authors:  J Schwitter; D Nanz; S Kneifel; K Bertschinger; M Büchi; P R Knüsel; B Marincek; T F Lüscher; G K von Schulthess
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2001-05-08       Impact factor: 29.690

9.  High-resolution magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging at 3.0-Tesla to detect hemodynamically significant coronary stenoses as determined by fractional flow reserve.

Authors:  Timothy Lockie; Masaki Ishida; Divaka Perera; Amedeo Chiribiri; Kalpa De Silva; Sebastian Kozerke; Mike Marber; Eike Nagel; Reza Rezavi; Simon Redwood; Sven Plein
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2011-01-04       Impact factor: 24.094

10.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 3-tesla for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparison with 1.5-tesla.

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

View more
  11 in total

1.  Is contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T superior to 1.5 T for detection of coronary artery disease?

Authors:  Thomas Walcher; Katharina Ikuye; Wolfgang Rottbauer; Jochen Wöhrle; Peter Bernhardt
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 2.  Fractional flow reserve derived from coronary CT angiography in stable coronary disease: a new standard in non-invasive testing?

Authors:  B L Nørgaard; J M Jensen; J Leipsic
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-02-14       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  CT fractional flow reserve: the next level in non-invasive cardiac imaging.

Authors:  M F L Meijs; M J Cramer; H El Aidi; P A Doevendans
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 2.380

Review 4.  Diagnosis and management of ischemic cardiomyopathy: Role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Christina Doesch; Theano Papavassiliu
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2014-11-26

Review 5.  Advances in parametric mapping with CMR imaging.

Authors:  Michael Salerno; Christopher M Kramer
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2013-07

Review 6.  Diagnostic performance of semi-quantitative and quantitative stress CMR perfusion analysis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  R van Dijk; M van Assen; R Vliegenthart; G H de Bock; P van der Harst; M Oudkerk
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 5.364

7.  Magnetic resonance Adenosine perfusion imaging as Gatekeeper of invasive coronary intervention (MAGnet): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Dominik Buckert; Simon Witzel; Maciej Cieslik; Raid Tibi; Wolfgang Rottbauer; Peter Bernhardt
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 8.  Assessment of stable coronary artery disease by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: Current and emerging techniques.

Authors:  James R J Foley; Sven Plein; John P Greenwood
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2017-02-26

9.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Versus Fractional Flow Reserve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Waqas Ullah; Sohaib Roomi; Hafez M Abdullah; Maryam Mukhtar; Zain Ali; Ping Ye; Donald C Haas; Vincent M Figueredo
Journal:  Cardiol Res       Date:  2020-05-03

10.  Inter-observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy of myocardial perfusion reserve quantification by cardiovascular magnetic resonance at 3 Tesla in comparison to quantitative coronary angiography.

Authors:  Katharina Ikuye; Dominik Buckert; Lisa Schaaf; Thomas Walcher; Wolfgang Rottbauer; Peter Bernhardt
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 5.364

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.