A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal

Diagnostic Performance of Quantitative Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Prior Coronary Artery Disease




AuthorsHoek, R; Borodzicz-Jazdzyk, S; van Diemen, PA; Somsen, YBO; de Winter, RW; Jukema, RA; Twisk, JWR; Raijmakers, PG; Knuuti, J, Maaniitty, T; Underwood, SR; Nagel, E; Robbers, LFHJ; Demirkiran, A; von Bartheld, MB; Driessen, RS; Danad, I; Götte, MJW; Knaapen, P

PublisherOxford University Press

Publication year2024

JournalEHJ Cardiovascular Imaging / European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging

Journal name in sourceEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging

Journal acronymEur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging

Article numberjeae262

Volume26

Issue2

First page 207

Last page217

ISSN2047-2404

eISSN2047-2412

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jeae262(external)

Web address https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jeae262(external)

Self-archived copy’s web addresshttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/458972721(external)


Abstract

Aims: The diagnostic performance of quantitative perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (QP-CMR) imaging has scarcely been evaluated in patients with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) and new onset chest pain. The present study compared the diagnostic performance of automated QP-CMR for detection of fractional flow reserve (FFR) defined hemodynamically significant CAD with visual assessment of first-pass stress perfusion CMR (v-CMR) and quantitative [15O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in a true head-to-head fashion in patients with prior CAD.

Methods and results: This PACIFIC-2 substudy included 145 symptomatic chronic coronary symptom patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). All patients underwent dual-sequence, single bolus perfusion CMR and [15O]H2O PET perfusion imaging followed by invasive coronary angiography with three-vessel FFR. Hemodynamically significant CAD was defined as an FFR ≤0.80. QP-CMR, v-CMR and PET exhibited a sensitivity of 66%, 67%, and 80%, respectively, whereas specificity was 60%, 62%, and 63%. Sensitivity of QP-CMR was lower than PET (P=0.015), whereas specificity of QP-CMR and PET was comparable. Diagnostic accuracy and area under the curve (AUC) of QP-CMR (64% and 0.66) was comparable to both v-CMR (66% [P=NS] and 0.67 (P=NS]) and PET (74% [P=NS] and 0.78 [P=NS]).

Conclusions: In patients with prior MI and/or PCI, the diagnostic performance of QP-CMR was comparable to visual assessment of first-pass stress perfusion CMR and quantitative [15O]H2O PET for the detection of hemodynamically significant CAD as defined by FFR.


Downloadable publication

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Please cite the original version.




Funding information in the publication
None declared.


Last updated on 2025-24-02 at 14:05