Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for the functional assessment of coronary artery disease: a comparison with coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve

2006; Oxford University Press; Volume: 27; Issue: 12 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1093/eurheartj/ehl039

1522-9645

Johannes Rieber, Armin Huber, Isabelle Erhard, Silvia Melitta Mueller, M Schweyer, Andreas Köenig, Thomas M. Schiele, K. Theisen, Uwe Siebert, Stefan O. Schoenberg, Maximilian Reiser, Volker Klauß,

Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics

Aims Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging (CMRI) is a promising technique for non-invasive measurement of myocardial perfusion reserve. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an established invasive method for functional assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD). To prospectively assess the diagnostic value of CMRI for the detection of haemodynamically significant coronary lesions, compared with coronary angiography (CA) and FFR. Methods and results Forty-three patients with suspected or known CAD underwent CA, CMRI, and FFR measurement. First pass magnetic resonance perfusion examination was performed during hyperaemia (140 µg/kg/min adenosine over 6 min) and at rest. One hundred and twenty-nine perfusion territories were assessed by semi-quantitative evaluation of signal intensity–time curves using the myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPRI) [upslopestress(corrected)/upsloperest(corrected)]. Perfusion territories were categorized as normal (coronary stenosis≤50%), intermediate (stenosis>50% and FFR>0.75), or severe (stenosis>50% and FFR≤0.75 or total occlusion). MPRI values (±SD) were significantly different between the three categories [normal, 2.2±0.5 vs. intermediate, 1.8±0.5 (P=0.005) and intermediate vs. severe, 1.2±0.3 (P<0.001)]. An MPRI cut-off value of 1.5 (derived from receiver operating characteristics analysis) distinguished haemodynamically relevant (severe) from non-relevant (normal and intermediate) stenoses with a sensitivity of 88% (CI 74–100%) and a specificity of 90% (CI 84–96%). Conclusion In contrast to earlier studies that compared CMRI with morphological examination (CA) alone, the present study compared CMRI with CA plus a standard invasive functional assessment (FFR) and demonstrated that CMRI is able to distinguish haemodynamically relevant from non-relevant coronary lesions with a high sensitivity and specificity and may therefore contribute to clinical decision-making.