Cardiac magnetic resonance for evaluating nonculprit lesions after myocardial infarction comparison with fractional flow reserve

OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine the agreement between cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging and invasive measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in the evaluation of nonculprit lesions after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In addition, we investigated whether fully quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion is superior to semiquantitative and visual analysis.BACKGROUND The agreement between CMR and FFR in the evaluation of nonculprit lesions in patients with STEMI with multivessel disease is unknown.METHODS Seventy-seven patients with STEMI with at least 1 intermediate (diameter stenosis 50% to 90%) nonculprit lesion underwent CMR and invasive coronary angiography in conjunction with FFR measurements at 1 month after primary intervention. The imaging protocol included stress and rest perfusion, cine imaging, and late gadolinium enhancement. Fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and visual analysis of myocardial perfusion were compared against a reference of FFR. Hemodynamically obstructive was defined as FFR 0.05). Stress myocardial blood flow displayed an AUC of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64 to 0.85), with a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 77%. Similarly, MFR displayed an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71 to 0.90), with a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 71%.CONCLUSIONS CMR and FFR have moderate-good agreement in the evaluation of nonculprit lesions in patients with STEMI with multivessel disease. Fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and visual analysis yield similar diagnostic performance. (C) 2020 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.