Literature DB >> 30735566

Prognostic Value of Vasodilator Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Multicenter Study With 48 000 Patient-Years of Follow-up.

John F Heitner1, Raymond J Kim2, Han W Kim2, Igor Klem2, Dipan J Shah3, Dany Debs3, Afshin Farzaneh-Far4, Venkateshwar Polsani5, Jiwon Kim6, Jonathan Weinsaft6, Chetan Shenoy7, Andrew Hughes7, Preston Cargile8, Jean Ho1, Robert O Bonow9,10, Elizabeth Jenista2, Michele Parker2, Robert M Judd2.   

Abstract

Importance: Stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is not widely used in current clinical practice, and its ability to predict patient mortality is unknown. Objective: To determine whether stress CMR is associated with patient mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Real-world evidence from consecutive clinically ordered CMR examinations. Multicenter study of patients undergoing clinical evaluation of myocardial ischemia. Patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) underwent clinical vasodilator stress CMR at 7 different hospitals. An automated process collected data from the finalized clinical reports, deidentified and aggregated the data, and assessed mortality using the US Social Security Death Index. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause patient mortality.
Results: Of the 9151 patients, the median (interquartile range) patient age was 63 (51-70) years, 55% were men, and the median (interquartile range) body mass index was 29 (25-33) (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared). The multicenter automated process yielded 9151 consecutive patients undergoing stress CMR, with 48 615 patient-years of follow-up. Of these patients, 4408 had a normal stress CMR examination, 4743 had an abnormal examination, and 1517 died during a median follow-up time of 5.0 years. Using multivariable analysis, addition of stress CMR improved prediction of mortality in 2 different risk models (model 1 hazard ratio [HR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.63-2.06; P < .001; model 2: HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.60-2.03; P < .001) and also improved risk reclassification (net improvement: 11.4%; 95% CI, 7.3-13.6; P < .001). After adjustment for patient age, sex, and cardiac risk factors, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a strong association between an abnormal stress CMR and mortality in all patients (HR, 1.883; 95% CI, 1.680-2.112; P < .001), patients with (HR, 1.955; 95% CI, 1.712-2.233; P < .001) and without (HR, 1.578; 95% CI, 1.235-2.2018; P < .001) a history of CAD, and patients with normal (HR, 1.385; 95% CI, 1.194-1.606; P < .001) and abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction (HR, 1.836; 95% CI, 1.299-2.594; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Clinical vasodilator stress CMR is associated with patient mortality in a large, diverse population of patients with known or suspected CAD as well as in multiple subpopulations defined by history of CAD and left ventricular ejection fraction. These findings provide a foundational motivation to study the comparative effectiveness of stress CMR against other modalities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30735566      PMCID: PMC6439546          DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.0035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Cardiol            Impact factor:   14.676


  34 in total

1.  2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Clyde W Yancy; Mariell Jessup; Biykem Bozkurt; Javed Butler; Donald E Casey; Mark H Drazner; Gregg C Fonarow; Stephen A Geraci; Tamara Horwich; James L Januzzi; Maryl R Johnson; Edward K Kasper; Wayne C Levy; Frederick A Masoudi; Patrick E McBride; John J V McMurray; Judith E Mitchell; Pamela N Peterson; Barbara Riegel; Flora Sam; Lynne W Stevenson; W H Wilson Tang; Emily J Tsai; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 2.  The prognostic value of normal stress cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Paola Gargiulo; Santo Dellegrottaglie; Dario Bruzzese; Gianluigi Savarese; Oriana Scala; Donatella Ruggiero; Carmen D'Amore; Stefania Paolillo; Piergiuseppe Agostoni; Edoardo Bossone; Andrea Soricelli; Alberto Cuocolo; Bruno Trimarco; Pasquale Perrone Filardi
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 7.792

3.  Measuring myocardial scar by CMR.

Authors:  Raymond Y Kwong; Afshin Farzaneh-Far
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2011-02

4.  Assessing the Gold Standard--Lessons from the History of RCTs.

Authors:  Laura E Bothwell; Jeremy A Greene; Scott H Podolsky; David S Jones
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Prognostic value of routine cardiac magnetic resonance assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction and myocardial damage: an international, multicenter study.

Authors:  Igor Klem; Dipan J Shah; Richard D White; Dudley J Pennell; Albert C van Rossum; Matthias Regenfus; Udo Sechtem; Paulo R Schvartzman; Peter Hunold; Pierre Croisille; Michele Parker; Robert M Judd; Raymond J Kim
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2011-09-12       Impact factor: 7.792

6.  Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction.

Authors:  R Hachamovitch; D S Berman; L J Shaw; H Kiat; I Cohen; J A Cabico; J Friedman; G A Diamond
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1998-02-17       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial.

Authors:  Juerg Schwitter; Christian M Wacker; Albert C van Rossum; Massimo Lombardi; Nidal Al-Saadi; Hakan Ahlstrom; Thorsten Dill; Henrik B W Larsson; Scott D Flamm; Moritz Marquardt; Lars Johansson
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2008-01-21       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 8.  Meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance for detection of coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Michèle Hamon; Georges Fau; Guillaume Née; Javed Ehtisham; Rémy Morello; Martial Hamon
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 5.364

9.  Stress cardiac MR imaging compared with stress echocardiography in the early evaluation of patients who present to the emergency department with intermediate-risk chest pain.

Authors:  John F Heitner; Igor Klem; Derek Rasheed; Abhinav Chandra; Han W Kim; Lowie M R Van Assche; Michele Parker; Robert M Judd; James G Jollis; Raymond J Kim
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-12-10       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Prognostic value of stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael J Lipinski; Courtney M McVey; Jeffrey S Berger; Christopher M Kramer; Michael Salerno
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 24.094

View more
  22 in total

1.  Error in Conflict of Interest Disclosure.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 14.676

2.  Left Atrial Strain Impairment Precedes Geometric Remodeling as a Marker of Post-Myocardial Infarction Diastolic Dysfunction.

Authors:  Jiwon Kim; Brian Yum; Maria C Palumbo; Razia Sultana; Nathaniel Wright; Mukund Das; Cindy You; Chaya S Moskowitz; Robert A Levine; Richard B Devereux; Jonathan W Weinsaft
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2020-08-19

3.  Myocardial Stress Perfusion MRI Using Regadenoson: A Weight-based Approach in Infants and Young Children.

Authors:  James C Wilkinson; Tam T Doan; Robert W Loar; Amol S Pednekar; Premal M Trivedi; Prakash M Masand; Cory V Noel
Journal:  Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging       Date:  2019-10-31

4.  Myocardial Contractile Mechanics in Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation: Multicenter Data Using Stress Perfusion Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

Authors:  Jonathan D Kochav; Jiwon Kim; Robert Judd; Katherine A Tak; Emmad Janjua; Abigail J Maciejewski; Han W Kim; Igor Klem; John Heitner; Dipan Shah; William A Zoghbi; Chetan Shenoy; Afshin Farzaneh-Far; Venkateshwar Polsani; Pablo Villar-Calle; Michele Parker; Kevin M Judd; Omar K Khalique; Martin B Leon; Richard B Devereux; Robert A Levine; Raymond J Kim; Jonathan W Weinsaft
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2022-05-11

Review 5.  Cardiovascular Biomarkers and Imaging in Older Adults: JACC Council Perspectives.

Authors:  Daniel E Forman; James A de Lemos; Leslee J Shaw; David B Reuben; Radmila Lyubarova; Eric D Peterson; John A Spertus; Susan Zieman; Marcel E Salive; Michael W Rich
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 24.094

6.  Prognostic value of stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance in asymptomatic patients without known coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Théo Pezel; Philippe Garot; Marine Kinnel; Thierry Unterseeh; Thomas Hovasse; Stéphane Champagne; Solenn Toupin; Francesca Sanguineti; Jérôme Garot
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Ischemia-Mediated Dysfunction in Subpapillary Myocardium as a Marker of Functional Mitral Regurgitation.

Authors:  Jonathan D Kochav; Jiwon Kim; Robert Judd; Han W Kim; Igor Klem; John Heitner; Dipan Shah; Chetan Shenoy; Afshin Farzaneh-Far; Venkateshwar Polsani; Ramsey Kalil; Pablo Villar-Calle; Lakshmi Nambiar; Razia Sultana; Michele Parker; Preston Cargile; Omar K Khalique; Martin B Leon; Dimitrios Karmpaliotis; Mark Ratcliffe; Robert Levine; William A Zoghbi; Richard B Devereux; Chaya S Moskowitz; Raymond Kim; Jonathan W Weinsaft
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2021-03-17

8.  Evaluation of Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Risk Reclassification of Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease.

Authors:  Panagiotis Antiochos; Yin Ge; Kevin Steel; Yi-Yun Chen; Scott Bingham; Shuaib Abdullah; J Ronald Mikolich; Andrew E Arai; W Patricia Bandettini; Amit R Patel; Afshin Farzaneh-Far; John F Heitner; Chetan Shenoy; Steve W Leung; Jorge A Gonzalez; Dipan J Shah; Subha V Raman; Victor A Ferrari; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Matthias Stuber; Orlando P Simonetti; Venkatesh L Murthy; Raymond Y Kwong
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 14.676

9.  Prognostic value of vasodilator stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance after inconclusive stress testing.

Authors:  Théo Pezel; Thierry Unterseeh; Philippe Garot; Thomas Hovasse; Marine Kinnel; Stéphane Champagne; Solenn Toupin; Francesca Sanguineti; Jérôme Garot
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2021-07-05       Impact factor: 5.364

10.  Commentary: Vasodilator Myocardial Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is Superior to Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography in the Detection of Relevant Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Their Diagnostic Accuracy.

Authors:  Attila Kardos; Roxy Senior; Harald Becher
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-06-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.