Format

Send to

Choose Destination
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Jan;7(1):14-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2013.08.014.

Diagnostic accuracy of stress perfusion CMR in comparison with quantitative coronary angiography: fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and qualitative assessment.

Author information

1
Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland; Department of Cardiology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC.
2
Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland.
3
Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland; Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Central Greece, Lamia, Greece.
4
Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: araia@nih.gov.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

This study's primary objective was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of fully quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) versus a reference standard of quantitative coronary angiography. We hypothesized that fully quantitative analysis of stress perfusion CMR would have high diagnostic accuracy for identifying significant coronary artery stenosis and exceed the accuracy of semiquantitative measures of perfusion and qualitative interpretation.

BACKGROUND:

Relatively few studies apply fully quantitative CMR perfusion measures to patients with coronary disease and comparisons to semiquantitative and qualitative methods are limited.

METHODS:

Dual bolus dipyridamole stress perfusion CMR exams were performed in 67 patients with clinical indications for assessment of myocardial ischemia. Stress perfusion images alone were analyzed with a fully quantitative perfusion (QP) method and 3 semiquantitative methods including contrast enhancement ratio, upslope index, and upslope integral. Comprehensive exams (cine imaging, stress/rest perfusion, late gadolinium enhancement) were analyzed qualitatively with 2 methods including the Duke algorithm and standard clinical interpretation. A 70% or greater stenosis by quantitative coronary angiography was considered abnormal.

RESULTS:

The optimum diagnostic threshold for QP determined by receiver-operating characteristic curve occurred when endocardial flow decreased to <50% of mean epicardial flow, which yielded a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 93%. The area under the curve for QP was 92%, which was superior to semiquantitative methods: contrast enhancement ratio: 78%; upslope index: 82%; and upslope integral: 75% (p = 0.011, p = 0.019, p = 0.004 vs. QP, respectively). Area under the curve for QP was also superior to qualitative methods: Duke algorithm: 70%; and clinical interpretation: 78% (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001 vs. QP, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS:

Fully quantitative stress perfusion CMR has high diagnostic accuracy for detecting obstructive coronary artery disease. QP outperforms semiquantitative measures of perfusion and qualitative methods that incorporate a combination of cine, perfusion, and late gadolinium enhancement imaging. These findings suggest a potential clinical role for quantitative stress perfusion CMR.

KEYWORDS:

AUC; CAD; CER; CMR; INT; LGE; PET; QCA; QP; ROC; SI; SLP; SPECT; area under the curve; cardiac magnetic resonance; contrast enhancement ratio; coronary artery disease; fully quantitative perfusion; late gadolinium enhancement; myocardial ischemia; myocardial perfusion; myocardial to left ventricular upslope ratio; positron emission tomography; quantitative coronary angiography; quantitative perfusion; receiver-operating characteristic; signal intensity; single-photon emission computed tomography; stress testing; upslope integral

Comment in

PMID:
24433707
PMCID:
PMC4186701
DOI:
10.1016/j.jcmg.2013.08.014
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center