Quantitative magnetic resonance perfusion imaging detects anatomic and physiologic coronary artery disease as measured by coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve

Regional myocardial perfusion reserve determined using myocardial perfusion magnetic resonance imaging showed a direct correlation with coronary flow velocity reserve by Doppler flow wire

AIMS

Quantitative analysis of rest-stress myocardial perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can provide assessments of regional myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR). The purpose of this study was to compare regional MPR determined by myocardial perfusion MRI with coronary flow reserve (CFR) by intracoronary Doppler flow wire.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) were studied. Average peak velocity was measured by Doppler flow wire in the resting state and during adenosine triphosphate (ATP) stress in 36 coronary arteries. CFR measurements for each patient were performed in the culprit and one non-culprit non-stenotic artery. First-pass, contrast-enhanced myocardial perfusion MR images were obtained in the resting state and during ATP stress within the week before the Doppler wire procedure. Regional myocardial blood flow (MBF) was quantified in 16 myocardial segments by analysing arterial input and myocardial output using a Patlak plot method. MPR was calculated as stress MBF divided by rest MBF. CFR measured by Doppler flow wire was compared with MPR in the myocardial segments corresponding to vessel territories. The average MPR measured by perfusion MRI was 1.77 +/- 0.62 for the culprit arteries and 3.45 +/- 0.78 for the non-culprit arteries, respectively (P < 0.001). The averaged CFR by Doppler flow wire was 1.72 +/- 0.44 in the culprit arteries and 3.14 +/- 0.74 in the non-culprit arteries, respectively (P < 0.001). For both culprit and non-culprit vessel groups, significant direct correlations were observed between MR assessments of MPR and Doppler assessments of CFR (culprit artery: R = 0.87, Non-culprit artery: R = 0.86) On Bland-Altman analysis, the mean differences between MPR determined by myocardial perfusion MRI and CFR measured by Doppler wire were 0.05 in culprit arteries (95% limit of agreement; -0.65 to 0.56) and 0.36 in non-culprit arteries (95% limit of agreement; -1.24 to 0.44). The sensitivity and specificity of MR measurement of MPR for predicting physiologically significant reduction of Doppler CFR (<2) was 88% (95% CI 61.7-98.5) and 90% (95% CI 68.3-98.8), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The current results using Doppler flow wire as a reference method demonstrated that quantitative analysis of stress-rest myocardial perfusion MRI can provide a non-invasive assessment of reduced MPR in patients with CAD.

Comprehensive assessment of coronary artery stenoses: computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional coronary angiography and correlation with fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive visual (computed tomography coronary angiography [CTCA]) and quantitative computed tomography coronary angiography (QCT) to predict the hemodynamic significance of a coronary stenosis, using intracoronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard.

BACKGROUND

It has been demonstrated that CTCA provides excellent diagnostic sensitivity for identifying coronary stenoses, but may lack accurate delineation of the hemodynamic significance.

METHODS

We investigated 79 patients with stable angina pectoris who underwent both 64-slice or dual-source CTCA and FFR measurement of discrete coronary stenoses. CTCA and conventional coronary angiography (CCA), and QCT and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), were performed to determine the severity of a stenosis that was compared with FFR measurements. A significant anatomical or functional stenosis was defined as >/=50% diameter stenosis or an FFR <0.75. Stented segments and bypass grafts were not included in the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 89 stenoses were evaluated of which 18% (16 of 89) had an FFR <0.75. The diagnostic accuracy of CTCA, QCT, CCA, and QCA to detect a hemodynamically significant coronary lesion was 49%, 71%, 61%, and 67%, respectively. Correlation between QCT and QCA with FFR measurement was weak (R values of -0.32 and -0.30, respectively). Correlation between QCT and QCA was significant, but only moderate (R = 0.53; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The anatomical assessment of the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses determined by visual CTCA, CCA, or QCT or QCA does not correlate well with the functional assessment of FFR. Determining the hemodynamic significance of an angiographically intermediate stenosis remains relevant before referral for revascularization treatment.

Comparison of quantitative coronary angiography and first-pass perfusion magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of an impaired coronary perfusion in nonsevere coronary stenosis

PURPOSE

To compare quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and first-pass perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (FPP-MRI) in symptomatic patients with nonsevere coronary stenosis to detect a reduced coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 35 patients, FPP-MRI and CFVR measurements were performed in 40 coronary arteries with a diameter stenosis (DS) <70% by QCA. From FPP-MRI a myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPRI) was calculated. CFVR was calculated as the ratio of the average peak flow velocity during infusion of adenosine and at rest and was considered reduced if <2. Diagnostic performance of MPRI and DS to detect a reduced CFVR was compared by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

CFVR was reduced in 16 coronary arteries (40%). Mean DS did not differ in coronary arteries with a reduced CFVR (41.0% +/- 13.3) and a normal CFVR (36.5% +/- 12.3; P = 0.281). Mean MPRI was lower in coronary arteries with a reduced CFVR (1.12 +/- 0.12) compared to a normal CFVR (1.33 +/- 0.2; P < 0.001). Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were higher for MPRI (81%, 79%, 0.84) than for DS (56%, 58%, 0.60).

CONCLUSION

FPP-MRI detects impaired CFVR in symptomatic patients with nonsevere coronary stenosis more accurately than QCA and can identify patients with symptomatic ischemia.

Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative cardiac MRI evaluation compared to stress single-photon-emission computed tomography

BACKGROUND

Cardiac MRI (cMRI) perfusion is a promising non-invasive tool to assess myocardial ischemia. The accuracy of quantitative cMRI perfusion has been recently demonstrated, but to date no previous study has compared this technique with stress single-photon-emission computed tomography (SPECT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) based on cMRI compared with SPECT.

METHODS

We examined 24 patients who underwent coronary angiography, stress SPECT and cMRI perfusion. Qualitative assessment of both SPECT and cMRI images, quantification of cMRI perfusion, and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) were independently performed. MPR was calculated using Fermi deconvolution technique. Accuracy of quantitative and qualitative data was examined to detect > 50% diameter stenosis (DS) by QCA.

RESULTS

Qualitative analysis was obtained in 198 segments and quantitative analysis was performed in 171 segments. Significant coronary artery disease (CAD) was present in 81.8% of patients. Visual cMRI assessment yielded sensitivity of 74.4% and specificity of 79.4% to predict > 50%DS, while SPECT showed sensitivity of 67.4% and specificity of 81.3%. The sensitivity for SPECT in the right coronary artery territory and apex was low compared to cMRI. Sensitivity and specificity for detection of significant CAD were 89.5% and 46.6% for MPR (cutoff 1.92). Area under the curve was 0.75 for MPR (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic accuracy of qualitative examination of perfusion cardiac MRI and stress SPECT were comparable. The high sensitivity and low operator dependency of quantitative cMRI makes it an attractive tool to evaluate myocardial perfusion.