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

Long-term prognostic value of contemporary stress echocardiography in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcome of contemporary stress echocardiography has not been systematically assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between results of stress echocardiography and patients' outcomes with suspected coronary artery disease using randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were searched for studies evaluating long-term outcome (>12 months) of stress echocardiography in patients suspected of coronary artery disease since year 2000. A common-effect model was used to derive pooled estimates. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death and non-fatal myocardial infarction, depending on the definition applied in individual trials, termed as major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). Secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Positive stress echocardiography result was defined as inducible ischaemia in at least one of the 17 left ventricular segments and negative stress echocardiography with no inducible ischaemia.

RESULTS

Among a total of six trials, 16 581 subjects underwent either pharmacological or treadmill stress echocardiography, a median follow-up of 31 months (range 21-101). The annual event rate was 1.76% for the composite MACE and 1.35% for all-cause mortality. Compared with negative stress echocardiography, positive stress echocardiography was associated with an increased risk of the MACE and all-cause mortality with an annual event rate of 1.99% vs 1.54% (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.33) and 1.68% vs 1.02% (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.80 to 2.35), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Positive stress echocardiography results were associated with poorer long-term MACE and all-cause mortality. Stress echocardiography results may provide a useful long-term guidance in intensifying preventative treatment in patients with suspected coronary artery disease.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023416766.

Prognostic Value of Qualitative and Quantitative Stress CMR in Patients With Known or Suspected CAD

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest that quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) may have more accuracy than qualitative CMR in coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnosis. However, the prognostic value of quantitative and qualitative CMR has not been compared systematically.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the utility of qualitative and quantitative stress CMR in the prognosis of patients with known or suspected CAD.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed through Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Medline. Studies that used qualitative vasodilator CMR or quantitative CMR assessments to compare the prognosis of patients with positive and negative CMR results were extracted. A meta-analysis was then performed to assess: 1) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina, and coronary revascularization; and 2) cardiac hard events defined as the composite of cardiac death and nonfatal MI.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies with 38,030 patients were included in this systematic review. MACE occurred significantly more in patients with positive qualitative (HR: 3.86; 95% CI: 3.28-4.54) and quantitative (HR: 4.60; 95% CI: 1.60-13.21) CMR assessments. There was no significant difference between qualitative and quantitative CMR assessments in predicting MACE (P = 0.75). In studies with qualitative CMR assessment, cardiac hard events (OR: 7.21; 95% CI: 4.99-10.41), cardiac death (OR: 5.63; 95% CI: 2.46-12.92), nonfatal MI (OR: 7.46; 95% CI: 3.49-15.96), coronary revascularization (OR: 6.34; 95% CI: 3.42-1.75), and all-cause mortality (HR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.12-2.47) were higher in patients with positive CMR.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of myocardial ischemia on CMR is associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with known or suspected CAD. Both qualitative and quantitative stress CMR assessments are helpful tools for predicting clinical outcomes.

Association between contrast-enhanced adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and invasive coronary angiogram for the detection of coronary artery disease: A retrospective analysis

Objective

The objective of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of stress perfusion CMR for the detection of coronary artery disease.

Methods

The was a retrospective cross sectional study in which 43 subjects were included from Cardiac MRI unit in the Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar for study from 1st April 2020 to 30th November 2020. All the subjects who had been referred for stress perfusion CMR with suspected CAD were included in the study. Cardiac MRI both at rest and with adenosine stress perfusion was performed which was followed by invasive coronary angiography.

Result

A total of 43 patients were enrolled for the detection or exclusion CAD who underwent stress perfusion CMRI and invasive coronary artery angiography. The study revealed strong and statistically significant association between positive stress perfusion CMR and positive coronary angiogram vs negative stress perfusion CMR and negative coronary angiogram (p= value 0.0001).

Conclusions

Stress perfusion CMRI can be considered as a first line, relatively safe, noninvasive test with significant accuracy to diagnose coronary artery disease in patients with suspected CAD without subjecting these patients to invasive coronary angiogram.

Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Stress Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Known or Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

The clinical utility of stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in stable chest pain is still debated, and the low-risk period for adverse cardiovascular (CV) events after a negative test result is unknown.

Objective

To provide contemporary quantitative data synthesis of the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of stress CMR in stable chest pain.

Data Sources

PubMed and Embase databases, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched for potentially relevant articles from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2021.

Study Selection

Selected studies evaluated CMR and reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy and/or raw data of adverse CV events for participants with either positive or negative stress CMR results. Prespecified combinations of keywords related to the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of stress CMR were used. A total of 3144 records were evaluated for title and abstract; of those, 235 articles were included in the full-text assessment of eligibility. After exclusions, 64 studies (74 470 total patients) published from October 29, 2002, through October 19, 2021, were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), odds ratio (OR), and annualized event rate (AER) for all-cause death, CV death, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) defined as the composite of myocardial infarction and CV death.

Results

A total of 33 diagnostic studies pooling 7814 individuals and 31 prognostic studies pooling 67 080 individuals (mean [SD] follow-up, 3.5 [2.1] years; range, 0.9-8.8 years; 381 357 person-years) were identified. Stress CMR yielded a DOR of 26.4 (95% CI, 10.6-65.9), a sensitivity of 81% (95% CI, 68%-89%), a specificity of 86% (95% CI, 75%-93%), and an AUROC of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.89) for the detection of functionally obstructive coronary artery disease. In the subgroup analysis, stress CMR yielded higher diagnostic accuracy in the setting of suspected coronary artery disease (DOR, 53.4; 95% CI, 27.7-103.0) or when using 3-T imaging (DOR, 33.2; 95% CI, 19.9-55.4). The presence of stress-inducible ischemia was associated with higher all-cause mortality (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.69-2.31), CV mortality (OR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.48-9.14), and MACEs (OR, 5.33; 95% CI, 4.04-7.04). The presence of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) was associated with higher all-cause mortality (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.99-2.47), CV mortality (OR, 6.03; 95% CI, 2.76-13.13), and increased risk of MACEs (OR, 5.42; 95% CI, 3.42-8.60). After a negative test result, pooled AERs for CV death were less than 1.0%.

Conclusion and Relevance

In this study, stress CMR yielded high diagnostic accuracy and delivered robust prognostication, particularly when 3-T scanners were used. While inducible myocardial ischemia and LGE were associated with higher mortality and risk of MACEs, normal stress CMR results were associated with a lower risk of MACEs for at least 3.5 years.

Qualitative and Quantitative Stress Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Clinical Practice: A Comprehensive Review

Stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is a well-validated non-invasive stress test to diagnose significant coronary artery disease (CAD), with higher diagnostic accuracy than other common functional imaging modalities. One-stop assessment of myocardial ischemia, cardiac function, and myocardial viability qualitatively and quantitatively has been proven to be a cost-effective method in clinical practice for CAD evaluation. Beyond diagnosis, stress CMR also provides prognostic information and guides coronary revascularisation. In addition to CAD, there is a large body of literature demonstrating CMR's diagnostic performance and prognostic value in other common cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), especially coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD). This review focuses on the clinical applications of stress CMR, including stress CMR scanning methods, practical interpretation of stress CMR images, and clinical utility of stress CMR in a setting of CVDs with possible myocardial ischemia.

What Is the Clinical Impact of Stress CMR After the ISCHEMIA Trial?

After progressively receding for decades, cardiovascular mortality due to coronary artery disease has recently increased, and the associated healthcare costs are projected to double by 2030. While the 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for chronic coronary syndromes recommend non-invasive cardiac imaging for patients with suspected coronary artery disease, the impact of non-invasive imaging strategies to guide initial coronary revascularization and improve long-term outcomes is still under debate. Recently, the ISCHEMIA trial has highlighted the fundamental role of optimized medical therapy and the lack of overall benefit of early invasive strategies at a median follow-up of 3.2 years. However, sub-group analyses excluding procedural infarctions with longer follow-ups of up to 5 years have suggested that patients undergoing revascularization had better outcomes than those receiving medical therapy alone. A recent sub-study of ISCHEMIA in patients with heart failure or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <45%) indicated that revascularization improved clinical outcomes compared to medical therapy alone. Furthermore, other large observational studies have suggested a favorable prognostic impact of coronary revascularization in patients with severe inducible ischemia assessed by stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Indeed, some data suggest that stress CMR-guided revascularization assessing the extent of the ischemia could be useful in identifying patients who would most benefit from invasive procedures such as myocardial revascularization. Interestingly, the MR-INFORM trial has recently shown that a first-line stress CMR-based non-invasive assessment was non-inferior in terms of outcomes, with a lower incidence of coronary revascularization compared to an initial invasive approach guided by fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina. In the present review, we will discuss the current state-of-the-art data on the prognostic value of stress CMR assessment of myocardial ischemia in light of the ISCHEMIA trial results, highlighting meaningful sub-analyses, and still unanswered opportunities of this pivotal study. We will also review the available evidence for the potential clinical application of quantifying the extent of ischemia to stratify cardiovascular risk and to best guide invasive and non-invasive treatment strategies.