JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2014
Diagnostic accuracy of stress perfusion CMR in comparison with quantitative coronary angiography: fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and qualitative assessment.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяResearch Support, N.I.H., IntramuralНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mordini Federico E, Haddad Tariq, Hsu Li-Yueh, Kellman Peter, Lowrey Tracy B, Aletras Anthony H, Bandettini W Patricia, Arai Andrew E
Аннотация
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.
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.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCoronary AngiographyCoronary CirculationExercise TestFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance Imaging, CineMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial IschemiaMyocardial Perfusion ImagingPrognosisQuality Assurance, Health CareROC CurveReproducibility of ResultsSeverity of Illness IndexTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon