Literature DB >> 23907345

Magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging at 3.0 Tesla for the identification of myocardial ischaemia: comparison with coronary catheter angiography and fractional flow reserve measurements.

Ullrich Ebersberger1, Marcus R Makowski, U Joseph Schoepf, Ulrich Platz, Fabian Schmidtler, Johanna Rose, Anne Kessel, Patricia Roth, Diethmar Antoni, Bernhard Schnackenburg, Thomas Helmberger, Johannes Rieber, Ellen Hoffmann, Alexander W Leber.   

Abstract

AIMS: To assess image quality and diagnostic performance of 3.0 Tesla (3T) cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) myocardial perfusion imaging with a dual radiofrequency source to detect functional relevant coronary artery disease (CAD), using coronary angiography and invasive pressure-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) as reference standard. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We included 116 patients with suspected or known CAD, who underwent 3T adenosine myocardial perfusion CMR (resolution 2.97 × 2.97 mm) and coronary angiography plus FFR measurements in intermediate lesions. Image quality of myocardial perfusion CMR was graded on a 4-point scale (1 = poor to 4 = excellent). Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by ROC analyses using a 16-myocardial segment-based summed perfusion score (0 = normal to 3 = transmural perfusion defect) and by determining sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value on the coronary vessel territory and the patient level. Diagnostic image quality was achieved for all stress myocardial perfusion CMR studies with an average quality score of 2.5, 3.1, and 3.0 for LAD, LCX, and RCA territories. The ability of the myocardial perfusion CMR perfusion score to detect significant coronary artery stenosis yielded an area under the curve of 0.93 on ROC analysis. Values for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value on a vessel territory level and the patient level were 89, 95, 87, 96% and 85, 87, 77, 92%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: In patients with suspected or known significant CAD, 3T myocardial perfusion CMR with standard perfusion protocols provides consistently high image quality and an excellent diagnostic performance.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3.0 Tesla; Coronary artery disease; Fractional flow reserve; Magnetic resonance imaging; Myocardial perfusion

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23907345     DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jet074

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 2047-2404            Impact factor:   6.875


  13 in total

Review 1.  Advances in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging of congenital heart disease.

Authors:  Mieke M P Driessen; Johannes M P J Breur; Ricardo P J Budde; Joep W M van Oorschot; Roland R J van Kimmenade; Gertjan Tj Sieswerda; Folkert J Meijboom; Tim Leiner
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2015-01-01

Review 2.  The dynamics of the coronary collateral circulation.

Authors:  Marco Zimarino; Mariangela D'Andreamatteo; Ron Waksman; Stephen E Epstein; Raffaele De Caterina
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 3.  Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Authors:  Amit R Patel; Michael Salerno; Raymond Y Kwong; Amita Singh; Bobak Heydari; Christopher M Kramer
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 27.203

Review 4.  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

Review 5.  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

6.  Do we need invasive confirmation of cardiac magnetic resonance results?

Authors:  Paweł Siastała; Jacek Kądziela; Łukasz A Małek; Mateusz Śpiewak; Katarzyna Lech; Adam Witkowski
Journal:  Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 1.426

7.  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

Review 8.  A review of 3D first-pass, whole-heart, myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

Authors:  Merlin J Fair; Peter D Gatehouse; Edward V R DiBella; David N Firmin
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2015-08-01       Impact factor: 5.364

9.  Data on diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance for coronary artery disease detection at the vessel level.

Authors:  Apostolos Kiaos; Ioannis Tziatzios; Stavros Hadjimiltiades; Charalambos Karvounis; Theodoros D Karamitsos
Journal:  Data Brief       Date:  2017-12-07

10.  Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Versus Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography for Detecting Coronary Artery Disease and Myocardial Ischemia: Comparison with Coronary Angiography.

Authors:  Fotios Laspas; Theodoros Pipikos; Emmanouil Karatzis; Nikolaos Georgakopoulos; Vasileios Prassopoulos; John Andreou; Lia A Moulopoulos; Achilleas Chatziioannou; Peter G Danias
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2020-03-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.