Search

Purpose: To examine factors associated with false-negative cardiovascular magnetic resonance (MR) perfusion studies within the large prospective Clinical Evaluation of MR imaging in Coronary artery disease (CE-MARC) study population. Myocardial perfusion MR has excellent diagnostic accuracy to detect coronary heart disease (CHD). However, causes of false-negative MR perfusion studies are not well understood., Materials and Methods: CE-MARC prospectively recruited patients with suspected CHD and mandated MR, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, and invasive angiography. This subanalysis identified all patients with significant coronary stenosis by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and MR perfusion (1.5T, T1 -weighted gradient echo), using the original blinded image read. We explored patient and imaging characteristics related to false-negative or true-positive MR perfusion results, with reference to QCA. Multivariate regression analysis assessed the likelihood of false-negative MR perfusion according to four characteristics: poor image quality, triple-vessel disease, inadequate hemodynamic response to adenosine, and Duke jeopardy score (angiographic myocardium-at-risk score)., Results: In all, 265 (39%) patients had significant angiographic disease (mean age 62, 79% male). Thirty-five (5%) had false-negative and 230 (34%) true-positive MR perfusion. Poor MR perfusion image quality, triple-vessel disease, and inadequate hemodynamic response were similar between false-negative and true-positive groups (odds ratio, OR [95% confidence interval, CI]: 4.1 (0.82-21.0), P = 0.09; 1.2 (0.20-7.1), P = 0.85, and 1.6 (0.65-3.8), P = 0.31, respectively). Mean Duke jeopardy score was significantly lower in the false-negative group (2.6 ± 1.7 vs. 5.4 ± 3.0, OR 0.34 (0.21-0.53), P < 0.0001)., Conclusion: False-negative cardiovascular MR perfusion studies are uncommon, and more common in patients with lower angiographic myocardium-at-risk. In CE-MARC, poor image quality, triple-vessel disease, and inadequate hemodynamic response were not significantly associated with false-negative MR perfusion., (© 2015 The Authors Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.)

Background: Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death in women, and underdiagnosis contributes to the high mortality. This study compared the sex-specific diagnostic performance of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)., Methods and Results: A total of 235 women and 393 men with suspected angina underwent CMR, SPECT, and x-ray angiography as part of the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease (CE-MARC) study. CMR comprised adenosine stress/rest perfusion, cine imaging, late gadolinium enhancement, and magnetic resonance coronary angiography. Gated adenosine stress/rest SPECT was performed with (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin. For CMR, the sensitivity in women and men was similar (88.7% versus 85.6%; P=0.57), as was the specificity (83.5% versus 82.8%; P=0.86). For SPECT, the sensitivity was significantly worse in women than in men (50.9% versus 70.8%; P=0.007), but the specificities were similar (84.1% versus 81.3%; P=0.48). The sensitivity in both the female and male groups was significantly higher with CMR than SPECT (P<0.0001 for both), but the specificity was similar (P=0.77 and P=1.00, respectively). For perfusion-only components, CMR outperformed SPECT in women (area under the curve, 0.90 versus 0.67; P<0.0001) and in men (area under the curve, 0.89 versus 0.74; P<0.0001). Diagnostic accuracy was similar in both sexes with perfusion CMR (P=1.00) but was significantly worse in women with SPECT (P<0.0001)., Conclusions: In both sexes, CMR has greater sensitivity than SPECT. Unlike SPECT, there are no significant sex differences in the diagnostic performance of CMR. These findings, plus an absence of ionizing radiation exposure, mean that CMR should be more widely adopted in women with suspected coronary artery disease., Clinical Trial Registration Url: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN77246133.

Background: Several investigations are currently available to establish the diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD). Of these, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) offers the greatest information from a single test, allowing the assessment of myocardial function, perfusion, viability and coronary artery anatomy. However, data from large scale studies that prospectively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric CMR for the detection of CHD in unselected populations are lacking, and there are few data on the performance of CMR compared with current diagnostic tests, its prognostic value and cost-effectiveness., Methods/design: This is a prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort study of 750 patients referred to a cardiologist with suspected CHD. Exercise tolerance testing (ETT) will be preformed if patients are physically able. Recruited patients will then undergo CMR and single photon emission tomography (SPECT) followed in all patients by invasive X-ray coronary angiography. The order of the CMR and SPECT tests will be randomised. The CMR study will comprise rest and adenosine stress perfusion, cine imaging, late gadolinium enhancement and whole-heart MR coronary angiography. SPECT will use a gated stress/rest protocol. The primary objective of the study is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of CMR in detecting significant coronary stenosis, as defined by X-ray coronary angiography. Secondary objectives include an assessment of the prognostic value of CMR imaging, a comparison of its diagnostic accuracy against SPECT and ETT, and an assessment of cost-effectiveness., Discussion: The CE-MARC study is a prospective, diagnostic accuracy cohort study of 750 patients assessing the performance of a multi-parametric CMR study in detecting CHD using invasive X-ray coronary angiography as the reference standard and comparing it with ETT and SPECT., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77246133.

Background: There are no prospective, prognostic data comparing cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in the same population of patients with suspected coronary heart disease (CHD).Objective: To establish the ability of CMR and SPECT to predict major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs).Design: Annual follow-up of the CE-MARC (Clinical Evaluation of MAgnetic Resonance imaging in Coronary heart disease) study for a minimum of 5 years for MACEs (cardiovascular death, acute coronary syndrome, unscheduled revascularization or hospital admission for cardiovascular cause). (Current Controlled Trials registration: ISRCTN77246133).Setting: Secondary and tertiary care cardiology services.Participants: 752 patients from the CE-MARC study who were being investigated for suspected CHD.Measurements: Prediction of time to MACE was assessed by using univariable (log-rank test) and multivariable (Cox proportional hazards regression) analysis.Results: 744 (99%) of the 752 recruited patients had complete follow-up. Of 628 who underwent CMR, SPECT, and the reference standard test of X-ray angiography, 104 (16.6%) had at least 1 MACE. Abnormal findings on CMR (hazard ratio, 2.77 [95% CI, 1.85 to 4.16]; P < 0.001) and SPECT (hazard ratio, 1.62 [CI, 1.11 to 2.38; P = 0.014) were both strong and independent predictors of MACE. Only CMR remained a significant predictor after adjustment for other cardiovascular risk factors, angiography result, or stratification for initial patient treatment.Limitation: Data are from a single-center observational study (albeit conducted in a high-volume institution for both CMR and SPECT).Conclusion: Five-year follow-up of the CE-MARC study indicates that compared with SPECT, CMR is a stronger predictor of risk for MACEs, independent of cardiovascular risk factors, angiography result, or initial patient treatment. This further supports the role of CMR as an alternative to SPECT for the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected CHD.Primary Funding Source: British Heart Foundation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The CE-MARC study assessed the diagnostic performance investigated the use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). The study used a multi-parametric CMR protocol assessing 4 components: i) left ventricular function; ii) myocardial perfusion; iii) viability (late gadolinium enhancement (LGE)) and iv) coronary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). In this pre-specified CE-MARC sub-study we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the individual CMR components and their combinations. Methods: All patients from the CE-MARC population (n = 752) were included using data from the original blinded-read. The four individual core components of the CMR protocol was determined separately and then in paired and triplet combinations. Results were then compared to the full multi-parametric protocol. Results: CMR and X-ray angiography results were available in 676 patients. The maximum sensitivity for the detection of significant CAD by CMR was achieved when all four components were used (86.5 %). Specificity of perfusion (91.8 %), function (93.7 %) and LGE (95.8 %) on its own was significantly better than specificity of the multi-parametric protocol (83.4 %) (all P < 0.0001) but with the penalty of decreased sensitivity (86.5 % vs. 76.9 %, 47.4 % and 40.8 % respectively). The full multi-parametric protocol was the optimum to rule-out significant CAD (Likelihood Ratio negative (LR-) 0.16) and the LGE component alone was the best to rue-in CAD (LR+ 9.81). Overall diagnostic accuracy was similar with the full multi-parametric protocol (85.9 %) compared to paired and triplet combinations. The use of coronary MRA within the full multi-parametric protocol had no additional diagnostic benefit compared to the perfusion/function/LGE combination (overall accuracy 84.6 % vs. 84.2 % (P= 0.5316); LR- 0.16 vs. 0.21; LR+ 5.21 vs. 5.77). Conclusions: From this pre-specified sub-analysis of the CE-MARC study, the full multi-parametric protocol had the highest sensitivity and was the optimal approach to rule-out significant CAD. The LGE component alone was the optimal rule-in strategy. Finally the inclusion of coronary MRA provided no additional benefit when compared to the combination of perfusion/function/LGE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to several articles by Drs. Bittencourt, Fernandes, and Schwitter which appear in the same issue of the journal and deal with a CE-MARC 2 coronary heart disease study, cardiovascular magnetic resonance, and unnecessary coronary angiography procedures.

A response from the authors of the article "Prognostic Value of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance and Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography in Suspected Coronary Heart Disease: Long-Term Follow-Up of a Prospective, Diagnostic Accuracy Cohort Study" published in the "Annals of Internal Medicine" in 2016 is presented.

The article examines the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for coronary heart disease. It notes the advantage of CMR in sensitivity and negative predictive value over that of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Furthermore, it cites the significant role of the Clinical Evaluation of MAgnetic Resonance imaging in Coronary heart disease (CE-MARC) study in the adoption of CMR for diagnosis and management of coronary heart disease.