Search

Abstract Background Recent studies have demonstrated the consistently high diagnostic and prognostic value of dobutamine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (DCMR). The value of DCMR for clinical decision making still needs to be defined. Hence, the purpose of this study was to assess the utility of DCMR regarding clinical management of patients with suspected and known coronary artery disease (CAD) in a routine setting. Methods and Results We prospectively performed a standard DCMR examination in 1532 consecutive patients with suspected and known CAD. Patients were stratified according to the results of DCMR: DCMR-positive patients were recommended to undergo invasive coronary angiography and DCMR-negative patients received optimal medical treatment. Of 609 (40%) DCMR-positive patients coronary angiography was performed in 478 (78%) within 90 days. In 409 of these patients significant coronary stenoses ≥50% were present (positive predictive value 86%). Of 923 (60%) DCMR-negative patients 833 (90%) received optimal medical therapy. During a mean follow-up period of 2.1 ± 0.8 years (median: 2.1 years, interquartile range 1.5 to 2.7 years) 8 DCMR-negative patients (0.96%) sustained a cardiac event. In 131 DCMR-positive patients who did not undergo invasive angiography, 20 patients (15%) suffered cardiac events. In 90 DCMR-negative patients (10%) invasive angiography was performed within 2 years (range 0.01 to 2.0 years) with 56 patients having coronary stenoses ≥50%. Conclusion In a routine setting DCMR proved a useful arbiter for clinical decision making and exhibited high utility for stratification and clinical management of patients with suspected and known CAD.

Abstract Background Adenosine first pass perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) yields excellent results for the detection of significant coronary artery disease (CAD). In patients with coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG) the kinetics of a contrast bolus may by altered only due to different distances through the bypass grafts compared to native vessels, thereby possibly imitating a perfusion defect. The aim of the study was to evaluate semiquantitative perfusion parameters in order to assess possible differences in epicardial contrast kinetics in areas supplied by native coronaries and CABG, both without significant stenosis. Methods Twenty patients with invasive exclusion of significant CAD (control group) and 38 patients with CABG without angiographically significant (≥50%) stenosis in unbypassed coronaries or grafts were retrospectively included in the study. They underwent adenosine first pass (0.05 mmol/kg Gd-DTPA) perfusion (3 short axis views/heart beat) and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging 1 day before invasive coronary angiography. Areas perfused by native coronaries and/or the different bypasses were identified in X-ray angiography using the 16 segment model. In each of these areas upslope and maximal signal intensity (SImax) relative to the left ventricular parameters, time to 50% maximal signal intensity (TSI50%max) and time to maximal signal intensity (TSImax) were calculated. Results In areas perfused by coronary arteries with bypasses compared to native coronaries relative upslope and relative SImax did not show a significant difference. TSI50%max and TSImax in native coronaries and bypasses were 7.2s ± 1.9s vs. 7.5s ± 1.9s (p < 0.05) and 12.6s ± 3.0s vs. 13.1s ± 3.0s (p < 0.05), respectively. The delay in Tmax resulted in a significant (p < 0.05) delay of 0.5 ± 1.1 heart beats (=images) when adjusted to the heart rate. Differences in time were most pronounced in areas perfused by left internal mammary artery grafts rather than by venous CABG, but were also present between native vessel territories in patients without CAD, albeit with smaller variability. Conclusion Adenosine perfusion CMR in patients post CABG may be associated with a short delay in contrast arrival. However, once the contrast is in the myocardium there is similar wash-in kinetics and peak enhancement. Therefore, since the delay is only short, the possibly differing contrast kinetics through grafts and native vessels does not seem to be a limiting factor for the accuracy of first pass adenosine perfusion in patients post CABG.

Abstract Background Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) imaging offers methods for the detection of ischemia and myocardial infarction as well as visualization of the coronary arteries (MRCA). However, a direct comparison of adenosine perfusion (PERF), late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and MRCA or the results of their combination has not been performed. Aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility/diagnostic performance of rest/stress perfusion, late gadolinium enhancement and MRCA and their combination in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) in comparison to invasive angiography. Methods Fifty-four patients (60 ± 10 years, 35 men, CAD 48%) underwent CMR including MRCA (steady state free precession, navigator whole heart approach, spatial resolution 0.7 × 0.7 × .0.9 mm, trigger delay and temporal resolution adjusted individually), stress PERF (adenosine 140 μg/min/kg), rest PERF (SSFP, 3 short axis, 1 saturation prepulse per slice) and LGE (3D inversion recovery technique) using Gd-BOPTA. Images were analyzed visually. Stenosis >50% in invasive angiography was considered significant. Results Mean study time was 68 ± 11 minutes. Sensitivity for PERF, LGE, MRCA and the combination of PERF/LGE and PERF/LGE/MRCA was 87%, 50%, 91%, 88% and 92%, respectively and specificity 88%, 96%, 46%, 88% and 56%, respectively. If image quality of MRCA was excellent (n = 18) the combination of MRCA/PERF/LGE yield a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 91%. However, no test or combination improved diagnostic performance significantly compared to PERF alone. Conclusion In patients with CAD, the combination of stress PERF, LGE and MRCA is feasible. When compared to invasive angiography, adenosine stress perfusion outperforms CMR coronary angiography in direct comparison and yields the best results with non-significant improvement in combination with LGE and significant deterioration in combination with MRCA. MRCA may be of additional value only in a minority of patients with excellent image quality.