DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracies of 1.5T and 3T Stress Myocardial Perfusion Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance for Detecting Significant Coronary Artery Disease

  • Min, Jee Young (Department of Radiology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine) ;
  • Ko, Sung Min (Department of Radiology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine) ;
  • Song, In Young (Department of Radiology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine) ;
  • Yi, Jung Geun (Department of Radiology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine) ;
  • Hwang, Hweung Kon (Department of Cardiology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine) ;
  • Shin, Je Kyoun (Department of Thoracic Surgery, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2018.02.13
  • 심사 : 2018.04.11
  • 발행 : 2018.12.01

초록

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) myocardial perfusion at 1.5- and 3-tesla (T) for detecting significant coronary artery disease (CAD), with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as the reference method. Materials and Methods: We prospectively enrolled 281 patients (age $62.4{\pm}8.3$ years, 193 men) with suspected or known CAD who had undergone 1.5T or 3T CMR and ICA. Two independent radiologists interpreted perfusion defects. With ICA as the reference standard, the diagnostic performance of 1.5T and 3T CMR for identifying significant CAD (${\geq}50%$ diameter reduction of the left main and ${\geq}70%$ diameter reduction of other epicardial arteries) was determined. Results: No differences were observed in baseline characteristics or prevalence of CAD and old myocardial infarction (MI) using 1.5T (n = 135) or 3T (n = 146) systems. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for detecting significant CAD were similar between the 1.5T (84%, 64%, 74%, 76%, and 0.75 per patient and 68%, 83%, 66%, 84%, and 0.76 per vessel) and 3T (80%, 71%, 71%, 80%, and 0.76 per patient and 75%, 86%, 64%, 91%, and 0.81 per vessel) systems. In patients with multi-vessel CAD without old MI, the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC with 3T were greater than those with 1.5T on a per-vessel basis (71% vs. 36%, 92% vs. 69%, and 0.82 vs. 0.53, respectively). Conclusion: 3T CMR has similar diagnostic performance to 1.5T CMR in detecting significant CAD, except for higher diagnostic performance in patients with multi-vessel CAD without old MI.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. ASCI Practice Guideline Working Group, Beck KS, Kim JA, Choe YH, Hian SK, Hoe J, et al. 2017 multimodality appropriate use criteria for noninvasive cardiac imaging: expert consensus of the Asian Society of Cardiovascular Imaging. Korean J Radiol 2017;18:871-880 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.6.871
  2. Takx RA, Blomberg BA, El Aidi H, Habets J, de Jong PA, Nagel E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion imaging compared to invasive coronary angiography with fractional flow reserve meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8. pii: e002666
  3. Rieber J, Huber A, Erhard I, Mueller S, Schweyer M, Koenig A, 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 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehl039
  4. Groothuis JG, Beek AM, Brinckman SL, Meijerink MR, van den Oever ML, Hofman MB, et al. Combined non-invasive functional and anatomical diagnostic work-up in clinical practice: the magnetic resonance and computed tomography in suspected coronary artery disease (MARCC) study. Eur Heart J 2013;34:1990-1998 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht077
  5. Rajiah P, Bolen MA. Cardiovascular MR imaging at 3 T: opportunities, challenges, and solutions. Radiographics 2014;34:1612-1635 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.346140048
  6. Meyer C, Strach K, Thomas D, Litt H, Nahle CP, Tiemann K, et al. High-resolution myocardial stress perfusion at 3 T in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Eur Radiol 2008;18:226-233 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0746-3
  7. Lockie T, Ishida M, Perera D, Chiribiri A, De Silva K, Kozerke S, et al. High-resolution magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging at 3.0-Tesla to detect hemodynamically significant coronary stenoses as determined by fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:70-75 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.09.019
  8. Yun CH, Tsai JP, Tsai CT, Mok GS, Sun JY, Hung CL, et al. Qualitative and semi-quantitative evaluation of myocardium perfusion with 3 T stress cardiac MRI. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2015;15:164 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-015-0159-1
  9. Strach K, Meyer C, Thomas D, Naehle CP, Schmitz C, Litt H, et al. High-resolution myocardial perfusion imaging at 3 T: comparison to 1.5 T in healthy volunteers. Eur Radiol 2007;17:1829-1835 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0560-3
  10. Walcher T, Ikuye K, Rottbauer W, Wohrle J, Bernhardt P. Is contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T superior to 1.5 T for detection of coronary artery disease? Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;29:355-361 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-012-0099-0
  11. Cheng AS, Pegg TJ, Karamitsos TD, Searle N, Jerosch-Herold M, Choudhury RP, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 3-tesla for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparison with 1.5-tesla. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:2440-2449 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.03.028
  12. Jogiya R, Kozerke S, Morton G, De Silva K, Redwood S, Perera D, et al. Validation of dynamic 3-dimensional whole heart magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging against fractional flow reserve for the detection of significant coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:756-765 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.02.075
  13. Chung HW, Ko SM, Hwang HK, So Y, Yi JG, Lee EJ. Diagnostic performance of coronary CT angiography, stress dual-energy CT perfusion, and stress perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography for coronary artery disease: comparison with combined invasive coronary angiography and stress perfusion cardiac MRI. Korean J Radiol 2017;18:476-486 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.3.476
  14. Ortiz-Perez JT, Rodriguez J, Meyers SN, Lee DC, Davidson C, Wu E. Correspondence between the 17-segment model and coronary arterial anatomy using contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2008;1:282-293
  15. Ebersberger U, Makowski MR, Schoepf UJ, Platz U, Schmidtler F, Rose J, et al. Magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging at 3.0 Tesla for the identification of myocardial ischaemia: comparison with coronary catheter angiography and fractional flow reserve measurements. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;14:1174-1180 https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jet074
  16. Mordini FE, Haddad T, Hsu LY, Kellman P, Lowrey TB, Aletras AH, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of stress perfusion CMR in comparison with quantitative coronary angiography: fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and qualitative assessment. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7:14-22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2013.08.014
  17. Greenwood JP, Motwani M, Maredia N, Brown JM, Everett CC, Nixon J, 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 https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000071
  18. Motwani M, Maredia N, Fairbairn TA, Kozerke S, Greenwood JP, Plein S. Assessment of ischaemic burden in angiographic three-vessel coronary artery disease with high-resolution myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;15:701-708 https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jet286
  19. Klem I, Heitner JF, Shah DJ, Sketch MH Jr, Behar V, Weinsaft J, et al. Improved detection of coronary artery disease by stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance with the use of delayed enhancement infarction imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:1630-1638 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.10.074
  20. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.07.011
  21. Pijls NH, Sels JW. Functional measurement of coronary stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:1045-1057 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.09.077
  22. Neglia D, Rovai D, Caselli C, Pietila M, Teresinska A, Aguade-Bruix S, et al.; EVINCI Study Investigators. Detection of significant coronary artery disease by noninvasive anatomical and functional imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8. pii: e002179

피인용 문헌

  1. Guidelines for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging from the Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging-Part 3: Perfusion, Delayed Enhancement, and T1- and T2 Mapping vol.20, pp.12, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0411
  2. Myocardial Blood Flow Quantified by Low-Dose Dynamic CT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Is Associated with Peak Troponin Level and Impaired Left Ventricle Function in Patients with ST-Elevated Myocardial vol.20, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0729
  3. Guideline for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging from the Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging-Part 1: Standardized Protocol vol.3, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.22468/cvia.2019.00108
  4. Guideline for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging from the Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging-Part 1: Standardized Protocol vol.20, pp.9, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0398
  5. Guidelines for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging from the Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging-Part 2: Interpretation of Cine, Flow, and Angiography Data vol.3, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.22468/cvia.2019.00115
  6. Guidelines for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging from the Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging-Part 2: Interpretation of Cine, Flow, and Angiography Data vol.20, pp.11, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0407
  7. Guidelines for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging from Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging (KOSCI) - Part 1: Standardized Protocol vol.23, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.13104/imri.2019.23.4.296
  8. Guidelines for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging from the Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging (KOSCI) - Part 2: Interpretation of Cine, Flow, and Angiography Data vol.23, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.13104/imri.2019.23.4.316
  9. Guidelines for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging from the Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging-Part 3: Perfusion, Delayed Enhancement, and T1- and T2 Mapping vol.4, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.22468/cvia.2019.00171
  10. Guidelines for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging from the Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging (KOSCI) - Part 3: Perfusion, Delayed Enhancement, and T1- and T2 Mapping vol.24, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.13104/imri.2020.24.1.1