OBJECTIVE: To develop a new method for the cardiac MR (CMR) quantification of peri-infarct ischaemia using fused perfusion and delayed-enhanced images and to evaluate this method using quantitative single photon emission CT (SPECT) imaging as a reference. METHODS: 40 patients presenting with peri-infarct ischaemia on a routine stress (99m)Tc-SPECT imaging were recruited. Within 8 days of the SPECT study, myocardial perfusion was evaluated using stress adenosine CMR. Using fused perfusion and delayed-enhanced images, peri-infarct ischaemia was quantified as the percentage of myocardium with stress-induced perfusion defect that was adjacent to and larger than a scar. This parameter was compared with both the percent myocardium ischaemia (SD%) and the ischaemic total perfusion deficit (TPD). The diagnostic performance of CMR in detection of significant coronary artery stenosis (of ≥70%) was also determined. RESULTS: On SPECT imaging, in addition to peri-infarct ischaemia, reversible perfusion abnormalities were detected in a remote zone in seven patients. In the 33 patients presenting with only peri-infarct ischaemia, the agreement between CMR peri-infarct ischaemia and both SD% and ischaemic TPD was excellent [intraclass coefficient of correlation (ICC) = 0.969 and ICC = 0.877, respectively]. CMR-defined peri-infarct ischaemia for the detection of a significant coronary artery stenosis showed an areas under receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.856 (95% confidence interval, 0.680-0.939). The best cut-off value was 8.1% and allowed a 72% sensitivity, 96% specificity, 60% negative predictive value and 97% positive predictive value. CONCLUSION: This proof-of-concept study shows that CMR imaging has the potential as a test for quantification of peri-infarct ischaemia. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study demonstrates the proof of concept of a commonly known intuitive idea, that is, evaluating the peri-infarct ischaemic burden by subtracting delayed enhancement from first-pass perfusion imaging on CMR.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a new method for the cardiac MR (CMR) quantification of peri-infarct ischaemia using fused perfusion and delayed-enhanced images and to evaluate this method using quantitative single photon emission CT (SPECT) imaging as a reference. METHODS: 40 patients presenting with peri-infarct ischaemia on a routine stress (99m)Tc-SPECT imaging were recruited. Within 8 days of the SPECT study, myocardial perfusion was evaluated using stress adenosine CMR. Using fused perfusion and delayed-enhanced images, peri-infarct ischaemia was quantified as the percentage of myocardium with stress-induced perfusion defect that was adjacent to and larger than a scar. This parameter was compared with both the percent myocardium ischaemia (SD%) and the ischaemic total perfusion deficit (TPD). The diagnostic performance of CMR in detection of significant coronary artery stenosis (of ≥70%) was also determined. RESULTS: On SPECT imaging, in addition to peri-infarct ischaemia, reversible perfusion abnormalities were detected in a remote zone in seven patients. In the 33 patients presenting with only peri-infarct ischaemia, the agreement between CMR peri-infarct ischaemia and both SD% and ischaemic TPD was excellent [intraclass coefficient of correlation (ICC) = 0.969 and ICC = 0.877, respectively]. CMR-defined peri-infarct ischaemia for the detection of a significant coronary artery stenosis showed an areas under receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.856 (95% confidence interval, 0.680-0.939). The best cut-off value was 8.1% and allowed a 72% sensitivity, 96% specificity, 60% negative predictive value and 97% positive predictive value. CONCLUSION: This proof-of-concept study shows that CMR imaging has the potential as a test for quantification of peri-infarct ischaemia. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study demonstrates the proof of concept of a commonly known intuitive idea, that is, evaluating the peri-infarct ischaemic burden by subtracting delayed enhancement from first-pass perfusion imaging on CMR.
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: Miwako Tsukiji; Patricia Nguyen; Girish Narayan; Jeffrey Hellinger; Frandics Chan; Robert Herfkens; John M Pauly; Michael V McConnell; Phillip C Yang Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2006 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: N Al-Saadi; E Nagel; M Gross; A Bornstedt; B Schnackenburg; C Klein; W Klimek; H Oswald; E Fleck Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-03-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Martin St John Sutton; Douglas Lee; Jean Lucien Rouleau; Steven Goldman; Ted Plappert; Eugene Braunwald; Marc A Pfeffer Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-05-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michael J Zellweger; Markus Weinbacher; Andreas W Zutter; Raban V Jeger; Jan Mueller-Brand; Christoph Kaiser; Peter T Buser; Matthias E Pfisterer Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-07-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Anja Wagner; Heiko Mahrholdt; Thomas A Holly; Michael D Elliott; Matthias Regenfus; Michele Parker; Francis J Klocke; Robert O Bonow; Raymond J Kim; Robert M Judd Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-02-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Abdou Elhendy; Arend F L Schinkel; Ron T van Domburg; Jeroen J Bax; Don Poldermans Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 2.778