John D Biglands1, Montasir Ibraheem2, Derek R Magee3, Aleksandra Radjenovic4, Sven Plein2, John P Greenwood2. 1. Division of Biomedical Imaging, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Department of Medical Physics and Engineering, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom. Electronic address: j.biglands@nhs.net. 2. Division of Biomedical Imaging, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom. 3. School of Computing, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom. 4. Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy of visual and quantitative analyses of myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance against a reference standard of quantitative coronary angiography. BACKGROUND: Visual analysis of perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance studies for assessing myocardial perfusion has been shown to have high diagnostic accuracy for coronary artery disease. However, only a few small studies have assessed the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative myocardial perfusion. METHODS: This retrospective study included 128 patients randomly selected from the CE-MARC (Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease) study population such that the distribution of risk factors and disease status was proportionate to the full population. Visual analysis results of cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion images, by consensus of 2 expert readers, were taken from the original study reports. Quantitative myocardial blood flow estimates were obtained using Fermi-constrained deconvolution. The reference standard for myocardial ischemia was a quantitative coronary x-ray angiogram stenosis severity of ≥70% diameter in any coronary artery of >2 mm diameter, or ≥50% in the left main stem. Diagnostic performance was calculated using receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: The area under the curve for visual analysis was 0.88 (95% confidence interval: 0.81 to 0.95) with a sensitivity of 81.0% (95% confidence interval: 69.1% to 92.8%) and specificity of 86.0% (95% confidence interval: 78.7% to 93.4%). For quantitative stress myocardial blood flow the area under the curve was 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.83 to 0.96) with a sensitivity of 87.5% (95% confidence interval: 77.3% to 97.7%) and specificity of 84.5% (95% confidence interval: 76.8% to 92.3%). There was no statistically significant difference between the diagnostic performance of quantitative and visual analyses (p = 0.72). Incorporating rest myocardial blood flow values to generate a myocardial perfusion reserve did not significantly increase the quantitative analysis area under the curve (p = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative perfusion has a high diagnostic accuracy for detecting coronary artery disease but is not superior to visual analysis. The incorporation of rest perfusion imaging does not improve diagnostic accuracy in quantitative perfusion analysis.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy of visual and quantitative analyses of myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance against a reference standard of quantitative coronary angiography. BACKGROUND: Visual analysis of perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance studies for assessing myocardial perfusion has been shown to have high diagnostic accuracy for coronary artery disease. However, only a few small studies have assessed the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative myocardial perfusion. METHODS: This retrospective study included 128 patients randomly selected from the CE-MARC (Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease) study population such that the distribution of risk factors and disease status was proportionate to the full population. Visual analysis results of cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion images, by consensus of 2 expert readers, were taken from the original study reports. Quantitative myocardial blood flow estimates were obtained using Fermi-constrained deconvolution. The reference standard for myocardial ischemia was a quantitative coronary x-ray angiogram stenosis severity of ≥70% diameter in any coronary artery of >2 mm diameter, or ≥50% in the left main stem. Diagnostic performance was calculated using receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: The area under the curve for visual analysis was 0.88 (95% confidence interval: 0.81 to 0.95) with a sensitivity of 81.0% (95% confidence interval: 69.1% to 92.8%) and specificity of 86.0% (95% confidence interval: 78.7% to 93.4%). For quantitative stress myocardial blood flow the area under the curve was 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.83 to 0.96) with a sensitivity of 87.5% (95% confidence interval: 77.3% to 97.7%) and specificity of 84.5% (95% confidence interval: 76.8% to 92.3%). There was no statistically significant difference between the diagnostic performance of quantitative and visual analyses (p = 0.72). Incorporating rest myocardial blood flow values to generate a myocardial perfusion reserve did not significantly increase the quantitative analysis area under the curve (p = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative perfusion has a high diagnostic accuracy for detecting coronary artery disease but is not superior to visual analysis. The incorporation of rest perfusion imaging does not improve diagnostic accuracy in quantitative perfusion analysis.
Authors: Matthew Jacobs; Mitchel Benovoy; Lin-Ching Chang; David Corcoran; Colin Berry; Andrew E Arai; Li-Yueh Hsu Journal: IEEE Access Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Roel S Driessen; Pepijn A van Diemen; Pieter G Raijmakers; Juhani Knuuti; Teemu Maaniitty; S Richard Underwood; Eike Nagel; Lourens F H J Robbers; Ahmet Demirkiran; Martin B von Bartheld; Peter M van de Ven; Leonard Hofstra; G Aernout Somsen; Igor I Tulevski; Ronald Boellaard; Albert C van Rossum; Ibrahim Danad; Paul Knaapen Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 35.855
Authors: Marc Dewey; Maria Siebes; Marc Kachelrieß; Klaus F Kofoed; Pál Maurovich-Horvat; Konstantin Nikolaou; Wenjia Bai; Andreas Kofler; Robert Manka; Sebastian Kozerke; Amedeo Chiribiri; Tobias Schaeffter; Florian Michallek; Frank Bengel; Stephan Nekolla; Paul Knaapen; Mark Lubberink; Roxy Senior; Meng-Xing Tang; Jan J Piek; Tim van de Hoef; Johannes Martens; Laura Schreiber Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 32.419