Dataset Information

Data on diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance for coronary artery disease detection at the vessel level.

ABSTRACT: Stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has been proposed as an important gatekeeper for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients evaluated for possible coronary artery disease (CAD) (Fihn et al., 2012; Montalescot et al., 2013) [1], [2]. Several meta-analyses have evaluated the accuracy of stress perfusion CMR to diagnose CAD at the vessel level (Danad et al., 2017; Dai et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2016; Takx et al., 2015; Li et al., 2015; Desai and Jha, 2013; Jaarsma et al. 2012; Hamon et al., 2010; Nandalur et al. 2007) [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. However, they included in the same analysis studies with different definitions of significant CAD (i.e. fractional flow reserve [FFR] < 0.75 and < 0.80 or coronary stenosis ? 50% and ? 70%), magnetic field strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla [T]), and study protocol (integration or not of late gadolinium enhancement [LGE] into stress perfusion protocol). Data of 34 studies (6091 arteries) have been pooled with the aim of analyzing the accuracy of stress perfusion CMR for the diagnosis of ischemic heart disease at the vessel level according to different definitions of significant CAD, magnetic field strength and study protocol (Arnold et al., 2010; Bettencourt et al., 2013; Cheng et al., 2007; Chiribiri et al., 2013; Cury et al., 2006; De Mello et al., 2012; Donati et al., 2010; Ebersberger et al., 2013; Gebker et al., 2008; Greulich et al., 2015; Hussain et al., 2016; Ishida et al., 2005, 2003; Kamiya et al., 2014; Kitagawa et al., 2008; Klein et al., 2008; Klem et al., 2006; Klumpp et al., 2010; Krittayaphong et al., 2009; Lockie et al., 2011; Ma et al., 2012; Merkle et al., 2007; Meyer et al., 2008; Mor-Avi et al., 2008; Pan et al., 2015; Papanastasiou et al., 2016; Pons Lladó et al., 2004; Sakuma et al., 2005; Salerno et al., 2014; Scheffel et al., 2010; van Werkhoven et al., 2010; Walcher et al., 2013; Watkins et al., 2009; Yun et al., 2015) [12-45]. This article describes data related article titled "Diagnostic Performance of Stress Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for the Detection of Coronary Artery Disease" (Kiaos et al., submitted for publication) [46].

SUBMITTER: Kiaos A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5847623 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Data on diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance for coronary artery disease detection at the vessel level.

Kiaos Apostolos A Tziatzios Ioannis I Hadjimiltiades Stavros S Karvounis Charalambos C Karamitsos Theodoros D TD

Data in brief 20171207

Stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has been proposed as an important gatekeeper for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients evaluated for possible coronary artery disease (CAD) (Fihn et al., 2012; Montalescot et al., 2013) [1], [2]. Several meta-analyses have evaluated the accuracy of stress perfusion CMR to diagnose CAD at the vessel level (Danad et al., 2017; Dai et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2016; Takx et al., 2015; Li et al., ...[more]

PMID: 29541674

Similar Datasets

Project description:Perfusion-cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is generally accepted as an alternative to SPECT to assess myocardial ischemia non-invasively. However its performance vs gated-SPECT and in sub-populations is not fully established. The goal was to compare in a multicenter setting the diagnostic performance of perfusion-CMR and gated-SPECT for the detection of CAD in various populations using conventional x-ray coronary angiography (CXA) as the standard of reference.In 33 centers (in US and Europe) 533 patients, eligible for CXA or SPECT, were enrolled in this multivendor trial. SPECT and CXA were performed within 4 weeks before or after CMR in all patients. Prevalence of CAD in the sample was 49% and 515 patients received MR contrast medium. Drop-out rates for CMR and SPECT were 5.6% and 3.7%, respectively (ns). The study was powered for the primary endpoint of non-inferiority of CMR vs SPECT for both, sensitivity and specificity for the detection of CAD (using a single-threshold reading), the results for the primary endpoint were reported elsewhere. In this article secondary endpoints are presented, i.e. the diagnostic performance of CMR versus SPECT in subpopulations such as multi-vessel disease (MVD), in men, in women, and in patients without prior myocardial infarction (MI). For diagnostic performance assessment the area under the receiver-operator-characteristics-curve (AUC) was calculated. Readers were blinded versus clinical data, CXA, and imaging results.The diagnostic performance (= area under ROC = AUC) of CMR was superior to SPECT (p = 0.0004, n = 425) and to gated-SPECT (p = 0.018, n = 253). CMR performed better than SPECT in MVD (p = 0.003 vs all SPECT, p = 0.04 vs gated-SPECT), in men (p = 0.004, n = 313) and in women (p = 0.03, n = 112) as well as in the non-infarct patients (p = 0.005, n = 186 in 1-3 vessel disease and p = 0.015, n = 140 in MVD).In this large multicenter, multivendor study the diagnostic performance of perfusion-CMR to detect CAD was superior to perfusion SPECT in the entire population and in sub-groups. Perfusion-CMR can be recommended as an alternative for SPECT imaging.ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT00977093.

Project description:ObjectivesThe authors developed a fully automated framework to quantify myocardial blood flow (MBF) from contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion imaging and evaluated its diagnostic performance in patients.BackgroundFully quantitative CMR perfusion pixel maps were previously validated with microsphere MBF measurements and showed potential in clinical applications, but the methods required laborious manual processes and were excessively time-consuming.MethodsCMR perfusion imaging was performed on 80 patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and 17 healthy volunteers. Significant CAD was defined by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) as ≥70% stenosis. Nonsignificant CAD was defined by: 1) QCA as <70% stenosis; or 2) coronary computed tomography angiography as <30% stenosis and a calcium score of 0 in all vessels. Automatically generated MBF maps were compared with manual quantification on healthy volunteers. Diagnostic performance of the automated MBF pixel maps was analyzed on patients using absolute MBF, myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR), and relative measurements of MBF and MPR.ResultsThe correlation between automated and manual quantification was excellent (r = 0.96). Stress MBF and MPR in the ischemic zone were lower than those in the remote myocardium in patients with significant CAD (both p < 0.001). Stress MBF and MPR in the remote zone of the patients were lower than those in the normal volunteers (both p < 0.001). All quantitative metrics had good area under the curve (0.864 to 0.926), sensitivity (82.9% to 91.4%), and specificity (75.6% to 91.1%) on per-patient analysis. On a per-vessel analysis of the quantitative metrics, area under the curve (0.837 to 0.864), sensitivity (75.0% to 82.7%), and specificity (71.8% to 80.9%) were good.ConclusionsFully quantitative CMR MBF pixel maps can be generated automatically, and the results agree well with manual quantification. These methods can discriminate regional perfusion variations and have high diagnostic performance for detecting significant CAD. (Technical Development of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging; NCT00027170).

Project description:Objectives: Guideline recommendations for patients with either a high or a low risk of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) are clear. However, the evidence for initial risk stratification in patients with an intermediate risk of CAD is still unclear, despite the availability of multiple non-invasive assessment strategies. The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence for this population to provide more informed recommendations. Background: A meta-analysis was performed to systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of vasodilator myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (pCMR) and dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) for the detection of relevant CAD. In contrast to previous work, this meta-analysis follows rigorous selection criteria in regards to the risk stratification and a narrowly prespecified definition of their invasive reference tests, resulting in unprecedentedly informative results for this reference group. Data Collection and Analysis: From the 5,634 studies identified, 1,306 relevant articles were selected after title screening and further abstract screening left 865 studies for full-text review. Of these, 47 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria resulting in a total sample size of 4,742 patients. Results: pCMR studies showed a superior sensitivity [0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-0.90) vs. 0.72 (95% CI: 0.61-0.81)], diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) [38 (95% CI: 29-49) vs. 20 (95% CI: 9-46)] and an augmented post-test probability [negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0.14 (95% CI: 0.12-0.18) vs. 0.31 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.46)] as compared to DSE. Specificity was statistically indifferent [0.84 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87) vs. 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83-0.93)]. Conclusion: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that pCMR has a superior diagnostic test accuracy for relevant CAD compared to DSE. In patients with intermediate risk of CAD only pCMR can reliably rule out relevant stenosis. In this risk cohort, pCMR can be offered for initial risk stratification and guidance of further invasive treatment as it also rules in relevant CAD.

Project description:BackgroundMyocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a well-established method for detection of ischemic heart disease. However, ECG gating problems can result in image degradation and non-diagnostic scans, particularly in patients with arrhythmias.MethodsA turboFLASH saturation recovery pulse sequence was used without any ECG triggering. One saturation pulse followed by 4-5 slices of undersampled radial k-space images was acquired rapidly, on the order of 40-50 msec per image. The acquisition of the set of 4-5 slices was continuously repeated approximately 4 times per second. An iterative constrained reconstruction method was used to reconstruct the ungated images. The ungated perfusion images were post-processed into three different sets of images (ungated, self-gated to near systole, and self-gated to near diastole). To test the ungated approach and compare the different processing methods, 8 patients scheduled for coronary angiography underwent stress and rest perfusion imaging with the ungated acquisition. Six patients had a history of atrial fibrillation (AF). Three blinded readers assessed image quality and presence/absence of disease.ResultsAll 8 subjects successfully completed the perfusion CMR protocol and 7/8 underwent coronary angiography. Three patients were in atrial fibrillation during CMR. Overall, the CMR images were of high quality as assessed by the three readers. There was little difference in image quality between patients in AF compared to those in sinus rhythm (3.6±0.7 vs. 3.3±0.5). Stress/rest perfusion imaging showed normal perfusion in 4 patients, fixed perfusion defects in 2 patients, and reversible perfusion defects in 2 patients, corresponding with angiographic results. Pooled results from the independent readers gave a sensitivity of 0.92 (CI 0.65-0.99) and specificity of 0.92 (CI 0.65-0.99) for the detection of coronary artery disease using ungated perfusion imaging. The same sensitivity, and a specificity of 1 (CI 0.76-1), was achieved when the images were self-gated after acquisition into near systole or near diastole.ConclusionsUngated radial dynamic perfusion CMR can give high quality imaging in patients in sinus rhythm and during atrial fibrillation. In this small cohort, high diagnostic accuracy was possible with this rapid perfusion imaging sequence. An ungated approach simplifies the acquisition and could expand the role of perfusion CMR to include patients with arrhythmia and those with gating problems.

Project description:Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of stress myocardial computed tomography (CT) perfusion with that of stress myocardial magnetic resonance (MR) perfusion imaging in the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD). Materials and Methods All patients gave written informed consent prior to inclusion in this institutional review board-approved study. This two-center substudy of the prospective Combined Noninvasive Coronary Angiography and Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Using 320-Detector Row Computed Tomography (CORE320) multicenter trial included 92 patients (mean age, 63.1 years ± 8.1 [standard deviation]; 73% male). All patients underwent perfusion CT and perfusion MR imaging with either adenosine or regadenoson stress. The predefined reference standards were combined quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and single-photon emission CT (SPECT) or QCA alone. Results from coronary CT angiography were not included, and diagnostic performance was evaluated with the Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by disease status. Results The prevalence of CAD was 39% (36 of 92) according to QCA and SPECT and 64% (59 of 92) according to QCA alone. When compared with QCA and SPECT, per-patient diagnostic accuracy of perfusion CT and perfusion MR imaging was 63% (58 of 92) and 75% (69 of 92), respectively (P = .11); sensitivity was 92% (33 of 36) and 83% (30 of 36), respectively (P = .45); and specificity was 45% (25 of 56) and 70% (39 of 56), respectively (P < .01). When compared with QCA alone, diagnostic accuracy of CT perfusion and MR perfusion imaging was 82% (75 of 92) and 74% (68 of 92), respectively (P = .27); sensitivity was 90% (53 of 59) and 69% (41 of 59), respectively (P < .01); and specificity was 67% (22 of 33) and 82% (27 of 33), respectively (P = .27). Conclusion This multicenter study shows that the diagnostic performance of perfusion CT is similar to that of perfusion MR imaging in the detection of CAD. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Dataset Information

Data on diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance for coronary artery disease detection at the vessel level.

Publications

Data on diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance for coronary artery disease detection at the vessel level.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets