Factors associated with false-negative cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion studies: A Clinical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging in coronary artery disease (CE-MARC) substudy

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 566-573

  Kidambi, Ananth ^a   Sourbron, Steven ^b   Maredia, Neil ^a   Motwani, Manish ^a   Brown, Julia M ^b   Nixon, Jane ^b   Everett, Colin C ^b   Plein, Sven ^a   Greenwood, John P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

cardiovascular magnetic resonance; coronary disease; ischemia; magnetic resonance imaging; perfusion

Indexed keywords

ADENOSINE; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE MEGLUMINE; TETROFOSMIN TC 99M;

ADULT; AGED; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE ASSESSMENT; CARDIOVASCULAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; CORONARY ARTERY OBSTRUCTION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DUKE JEOPARDY SCORE; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FEMALE; GAMMA CAMERA; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY; ANGIOGRAPHY; CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HEMODYNAMICS; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ODDS RATIO; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERFUSION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK FACTOR;

AGED; ANGIOGRAPHY; CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ODDS RATIO; PERFUSION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84959569443     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25032     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al., Heart disease and stroke statistics-2011 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2011; 123: e18-e209.
2. Hundley WG, Bluemke DA, Finn JP, et al., ACCF/ACR/AHA/NASCI/SCMR 2010 expert consensus document on cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents. Circulation 2010; 121: 2462-2508.
3. Walker S, Girardin F, McKenna C, et al., Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the diagnosis of coronary heart disease: an economic evaluation using data from the CE-MARC study. Heart 2013; 99: 873-881.
4. Nandalur KR, Dwamena BA, Choudhri AF, Nandalur MR, Carlos RC,. Diagnostic performance of stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 50: 1343-1353.
5. Jahnke C, Nagel E, Gebker R, et al., Prognostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance stress tests: adenosine stress perfusion and dobutamine stress wall motion imaging. Circulation 2007; 115: 1769-1776.
6. Jaarsma C, Leiner T, Bekkers SC, et al., Diagnostic performance of noninvasive myocardial perfusion imaging using single-photon emission computed tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance, and positron emission tomography imaging for the detection of obstructive coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59: 1719-1728.
7. Li M, Zhou T, Yang LF, Peng ZH, Ding J, Sun G,. Diagnostic accuracy of myocardial magnetic resonance perfusion to diagnose ischemic stenosis with fractional flow reserve as reference: systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2014; 7: 1098-1105.
8. Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Younger JF, et al., Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet 2012; 379: 453-460.
9. Greenwood JP, Motwani M, Maredia N, et al., Comparison of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography in women with suspected coronary artery disease from the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease (CE-MARC) trial. Circulation 2014; 129: 1129-1138.
10. Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Radjenovic A, et al., Clinical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging in coronary heart disease: the CE-MARC study. Trials 2009; 10: 62.
11. Dash H, Johnson RA, Dinsmore RE, Francis CK, Harthorne JW,. Cardiomyopathic syndrome due to coronary arter disease. II: Increased prevalence in patients with diabetes mellitus: a matched pair analysis. Br Heart J 1977; 39: 740-747.
12. Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, et al., Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2002; 18: 539-542.
13. Karamitsos TD, Ntusi NA, Francis JM, Holloway CJ, Myerson SG, Neubauer S,. Feasibility and safety of high-dose adenosine perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2010; 12: 66.
14. Huber A, Sourbron S, Klauss V, et al., Magnetic resonance perfusion of the myocardium: semiquantitative and quantitative evaluation in comparison with coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. Invest Radiol 2012; 47: 332-338.
15. Jerosch-Herold M, Wilke N, Stillman AE,. Magnetic resonance quantification of the myocardial perfusion reserve with a Fermi function model for constrained deconvolution. Med Phys 1998; 25: 73-84.
16. Motwani M, Fairbairn TA, Larghat A, et al., Systolic versus diastolic acquisition in myocardial perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2012; 262: 816-823.
17. Ishida N, Sakuma H, Motoyasu M, et al., Noninfarcted myocardium: correlation between dynamic first-pass contrast-enhanced myocardial MR imaging and quantitative coronary angiography. Radiology 2003; 229: 209-216.
18. Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH, et al., ACC/AHA/ASNC guidelines for the clinical use of cardiac radionuclide imaging-executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASNC Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging). J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42: 1318-1333.
19. Ragosta M, Bishop AH, Lipson LC, et al., Comparison between angiography and fractional flow reserve versus single-photon emission computed tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging for determining lesion significance in patients with multivessel coronary disease. Am J Cardiol 2007; 99: 896-902.
20. Leone AM, De Caterina AR, Basile E, et al., Influence of the amount of myocardium subtended by a stenosis on fractional flow reserve. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 6: 29-36.
21. Califf RM, Phillips HR 3rd, Hindman MC, et al., Prognostic value of a coronary artery jeopardy score. J Am Coll Cardiol 1985; 5: 1055-1063.
22. Rieber J, Huber A, Erhard I, et al., Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for the functional assessment of coronary artery disease: a comparison with coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. Eur Heart J 2006; 27: 1465-1471.
23. Wilson RF, Wyche K, Christensen BV, Zimmer S, Laxson DD,. Effects of adenosine on human coronary arterial circulation. Circulation 1990; 82: 1595-1606.
24. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al., Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 213-224.