Federico E Mordini1, Tariq Haddad2, Li-Yueh Hsu2, Peter Kellman2, Tracy B Lowrey2, Anthony H Aletras3, W Patricia Bandettini2, Andrew E Arai4. 1. Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland; Department of Cardiology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC. 2. Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland; Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Central Greece, Lamia, Greece. 4. Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: araia@nih.gov.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study's primary objective was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of fully quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) versus a reference standard of quantitative coronary angiography. We hypothesized that fully quantitative analysis of stress perfusion CMR would have high diagnostic accuracy for identifying significant coronary artery stenosis and exceed the accuracy of semiquantitative measures of perfusion and qualitative interpretation. BACKGROUND: Relatively few studies apply fully quantitative CMR perfusion measures to patients with coronary disease and comparisons to semiquantitative and qualitative methods are limited. METHODS: Dual bolus dipyridamole stress perfusion CMR exams were performed in 67 patients with clinical indications for assessment of myocardial ischemia. Stress perfusion images alone were analyzed with a fully quantitative perfusion (QP) method and 3 semiquantitative methods including contrast enhancement ratio, upslope index, and upslope integral. Comprehensive exams (cine imaging, stress/rest perfusion, late gadolinium enhancement) were analyzed qualitatively with 2 methods including the Duke algorithm and standard clinical interpretation. A 70% or greater stenosis by quantitative coronary angiography was considered abnormal. RESULTS: The optimum diagnostic threshold for QP determined by receiver-operating characteristic curve occurred when endocardial flow decreased to <50% of mean epicardial flow, which yielded a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 93%. The area under the curve for QP was 92%, which was superior to semiquantitative methods: contrast enhancement ratio: 78%; upslope index: 82%; and upslope integral: 75% (p = 0.011, p = 0.019, p = 0.004 vs. QP, respectively). Area under the curve for QP was also superior to qualitative methods: Duke algorithm: 70%; and clinical interpretation: 78% (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001 vs. QP, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Fully quantitative stress perfusion CMR has high diagnostic accuracy for detecting obstructive coronary artery disease. QP outperforms semiquantitative measures of perfusion and qualitative methods that incorporate a combination of cine, perfusion, and late gadolinium enhancement imaging. These findings suggest a potential clinical role for quantitative stress perfusion CMR.
OBJECTIVES: This study's primary objective was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of fully quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) versus a reference standard of quantitative coronary angiography. We hypothesized that fully quantitative analysis of stress perfusion CMR would have high diagnostic accuracy for identifying significant coronary artery stenosis and exceed the accuracy of semiquantitative measures of perfusion and qualitative interpretation. BACKGROUND: Relatively few studies apply fully quantitative CMR perfusion measures to patients with coronary disease and comparisons to semiquantitative and qualitative methods are limited. METHODS: Dual bolus dipyridamole stress perfusion CMR exams were performed in 67 patients with clinical indications for assessment of myocardial ischemia. Stress perfusion images alone were analyzed with a fully quantitative perfusion (QP) method and 3 semiquantitative methods including contrast enhancement ratio, upslope index, and upslope integral. Comprehensive exams (cine imaging, stress/rest perfusion, late gadolinium enhancement) were analyzed qualitatively with 2 methods including the Duke algorithm and standard clinical interpretation. A 70% or greater stenosis by quantitative coronary angiography was considered abnormal. RESULTS: The optimum diagnostic threshold for QP determined by receiver-operating characteristic curve occurred when endocardial flow decreased to <50% of mean epicardial flow, which yielded a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 93%. The area under the curve for QP was 92%, which was superior to semiquantitative methods: contrast enhancement ratio: 78%; upslope index: 82%; and upslope integral: 75% (p = 0.011, p = 0.019, p = 0.004 vs. QP, respectively). Area under the curve for QP was also superior to qualitative methods: Duke algorithm: 70%; and clinical interpretation: 78% (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001 vs. QP, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Fully quantitative stress perfusion CMR has high diagnostic accuracy for detecting obstructive coronary artery disease. QP outperforms semiquantitative measures of perfusion and qualitative methods that incorporate a combination of cine, perfusion, and late gadolinium enhancement imaging. These findings suggest a potential clinical role for quantitative stress perfusion CMR.
Authors: Piotr J Slomka; Hidetaka Nishina; Daniel S Berman; Cigdem Akincioglu; Aiden Abidov; John D Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Guido Germano Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Guido Germano; Paul B Kavanagh; Piotr J Slomka; Serge D Van Kriekinge; Geoff Pollard; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: D L Kraitchman; N Wilke; E Hexeberg; M Jerosch-Herold; Y Wang; T B Parrish; C N Chang; Y Zhang; R J Bache; L Axel Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 1996-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: M Di Carli; J Czernin; C K Hoh; V H Gerbaudo; R C Brunken; S C Huang; M E Phelps; H R Schelbert Journal: Circulation Date: 1995-04-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: O Muzik; C Duvernoy; R S Beanlands; S Sawada; F Dayanikli; E R Wolfe; M Schwaiger Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1998-03-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: N Wilke; C Simm; J Zhang; J Ellermann; X Ya; H Merkle; G Path; H Lüdemann; R J Bache; K Uğurbil Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 1993-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: R A Goldstein; R L Kirkeeide; L L Demer; M Merhige; A Nishikawa; R W Smalling; N A Mullani; K L Gould Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 1987-05 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Lauren A Baldassarre; Subha V Raman; James K Min; Jennifer H Mieres; Martha Gulati; Nanette K Wenger; Thomas H Marwick; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci; C Noel Bairey Merz; Dipti Itchhaporia; Keith C Ferdinand; Carl J Pepine; Mary Norine Walsh; Jagat Narula; Leslee J Shaw Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-04
Authors: Nivedita K Naresh; Hassan Haji-Valizadeh; Pascale J Aouad; Matthew J Barrett; Kelvin Chow; Ann B Ragin; Jeremy D Collins; James C Carr; Daniel C Lee; Daniel Kim Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ashley E Morgan; Yue Zhang; Mehrzad Tartibi; Samantha Goldburg; Jiwon J Kim; Thanh D Nguyen; Julius Guccione; Liang Ge; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Mark B Ratcliffe Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Michael Bietenbeck; Anca Florian; Zornitsa Shomanova; Claudia Meier; Ali Yilmaz Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 5.460