PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to evaluate the ability of contrast-enhanced MRI to visualize the coronary veins with validation by the gold standard, X-ray venography, and to determine whether MRI can visualize the coronary vein branch used for left ventricular (LV) lead implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen (19) patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) received a cardiac MRI at 1.5T 1 week before treatment. Coronary vein images were acquired using a 3D, navigator- and ECG-gated, contrast-enhanced, inversion-recovery, fast low-angle shot (FLASH) sequence. X-ray venography was performed during the CRT procedure to image the coronary venous anatomy and the LV lead location. MRI coronary vein images were graded on a 0-3 scale (0 = nonexistent, 1 = poor, 2 = good, 3 = excellent). MRI and X-ray venogram images were also graded using a binary visible/not visible scheme to compare the visibility of the coronary veins. RESULTS: The mean visibility scores for the coronary sinus, the posterior interventricular, the posterior vein of the left ventricle, the left marginal vein, and the anterior interventricular were 3.0 ± 0.2, 2.3 ± 0.7, 1.6 ± 1.1, 1.9 ± 0.8 and 2.4 ± 0.9, respectively. When compared to X-ray venography, MRI was capable of visualizing 90% of veins and all of the veins used for LV lead implantation. The vein used for LV lead implantation had an average vein image quality score of 1.9 on MRI images. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced MRI was capable of visualizing 90% of the coronary venous anatomy and was able visualize the vein used for LV lead implantation in all patients.
PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to evaluate the ability of contrast-enhanced MRI to visualize the coronary veins with validation by the gold standard, X-ray venography, and to determine whether MRI can visualize the coronary vein branch used for left ventricular (LV) lead implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen (19) patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) received a cardiac MRI at 1.5T 1 week before treatment. Coronary vein images were acquired using a 3D, navigator- and ECG-gated, contrast-enhanced, inversion-recovery, fast low-angle shot (FLASH) sequence. X-ray venography was performed during the CRT procedure to image the coronary venous anatomy and the LV lead location. MRI coronary vein images were graded on a 0-3 scale (0 = nonexistent, 1 = poor, 2 = good, 3 = excellent). MRI and X-ray venogram images were also graded using a binary visible/not visible scheme to compare the visibility of the coronary veins. RESULTS: The mean visibility scores for the coronary sinus, the posterior interventricular, the posterior vein of the left ventricle, the left marginal vein, and the anterior interventricular were 3.0 ± 0.2, 2.3 ± 0.7, 1.6 ± 1.1, 1.9 ± 0.8 and 2.4 ± 0.9, respectively. When compared to X-ray venography, MRI was capable of visualizing 90% of veins and all of the veins used for LV lead implantation. The vein used for LV lead implantation had an average vein image quality score of 1.9 on MRI images. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced MRI was capable of visualizing 90% of the coronary venous anatomy and was able visualize the vein used for LV lead implantation in all patients.
Authors: Simon G Duckett; Amedeo Chiribiri; Matthew R Ginks; Stephen Sinclair; Benjamin R Knowles; Rene Botnar; Gerry S Carr-White; Christopher A Rinaldi; Eike Nagel; Reza Razavi; Tobias Schaeffter Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Michael Becker; Andreas Franke; Ole A Breithardt; Christina Ocklenburg; Theresa Kaminski; Rafael Kramann; Christian Knackstedt; Christoph Stellbrink; Peter Hanrath; Patrick Schauerte; Rainer Hoffmann Journal: Heart Date: 2007-02-19 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Andrea M Russo; Raymond F Stainback; Steven R Bailey; Andrew E Epstein; Paul A Heidenreich; Mariell Jessup; Suraj Kapa; Mark S Kremers; Bruce D Lindsay; Lynne Warner Stevenson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Victoria Delgado; Rutger J van Bommel; Matteo Bertini; C Jan Willem Borleffs; Nina Ajmone Marsan; C T Arnold; Gaetano Nucifora; Nico R L van de Veire; Claudia Ypenburg; Eric Boersma; Eduard R Holman; Martin J Schalij; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-12-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: James A White; Nowell Fine; Lorne J Gula; Raymond Yee; Mohammed Al-Admawi; Qi Zhang; Andrew Krahn; Allan Skanes; Anna MacDonald; Terry Peters; Maria Drangova Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-09
Authors: Nico R Van de Veire; Joanne D Schuijf; Johan De Sutter; Dan Devos; Gabe B Bleeker; Albert de Roos; Ernst E van der Wall; Martin J Schalij; Jeroen J Bax Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-10-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: John F Beshai; Richard A Grimm; Sherif F Nagueh; James H Baker; Scott L Beau; Steven M Greenberg; Luis A Pires; Patrick J Tchou Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-11-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John F Younger; Sven Plein; Andrew Crean; Stephen G Ball; John P Greenwood Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2009-08-11 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Daniel A Auger; Kenneth C Bilchick; Jorge A Gonzalez; Sophia X Cui; Jeffrey W Holmes; Christopher M Kramer; Michael Salerno; Frederick H Epstein Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 4.813