Quantification of myocardial blood flow using stress cardiac magnetic resonance for the detection of coronary artery disease
S Wang,H N Wang,M Y Ng,Y Tada,G Pontone,J Urmeneta,I Saeed,H Patel,C Mariager,J V Monmeneu-Menadas,A Pazhenkottil,M Benovoy,A E Arai,M G Friedrich,A R Patel On Behalf Of The Aqua-Mbf Investigators
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jead119.375
2023-06-01
European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging
Abstract:Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): GE Healthcare. Background Myocardial blood flow (MBF) analysis using stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has been shown to detect obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD); however, evaluation of its diagnostic performance has primarily been limited to single-center studies. AQUA-MBF (Assessment of QUAntitative MBF using stress CMR) is an international study with the goal of assessing the diagnostic performance of stress MBF for the detection of CAD. In this study, we aim to determine how stress MBF assessment compared against visual analysis (VA) of stress CMR images for the detection of CAD. Methods. 144 individuals (89 (62%) men, age 62±16 years, 97 (68%) hypertension, 54 (38%) diabetes, 92 (64%) hyperlipidemia) from 9 centers who underwent dual sequence stress CMR (1.5T or 3.0T GE Healthcare) and also had either a coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA, n=31), invasive coronary angiogram (ICA, n=95), or low pre-test probability for CAD (n=18) were included. CAD was defined as the presence of: (1) a stenosis ≥50% in the left main coronary artery or ≥70% in the 1 major vessel based on ICA or CTA or (2) an invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤ 0.8. Absence of obstructive coronary disease (NOCAD) was defined as a no history of myocardial infarction and stenosis <50% by ICA or CTA, 50–70% stenosis with FFR>0.8, or a young individual with no cardiac risk factors. Myocardial perfusion imaging was performed during first pass perfusion of a gadolinium-based contrast agent following the administration of adenosine or regadenoson with a low-resolution image acquired to assess the arterial input function and 2–3 short axis slices acquired to assess myocardial perfusion. VA was performed by 2 experienced cardiologists who assigned a grade of 1–5 based on the probability a study was abnormal. Stress MBF values were determined for each of the 16 myocardial segments using Fermi deconvolution (CircleCVI). The global stress MBF was calculated as the average value of two segments with the lowest values from each of the three coronary artery territories. Unpaired t-test was used to compare stress MBF values between CAD vs NOCAD. Receiver-operating characteristics curves were used to determine diagnostic performance. Results. 60 patients had CAD (20: 1-vessel, 26: 2-vessel, and 14: 3-vessel) (Figure 1A) while 84 had NOCAD (Figure 1B). The global stress MBF in CAD was lower than in NOCAD (1.63±0.52ml/g/min vs 2.41±0.68ml/g/min, p<0.0001) (Figure 2A). Stress MBF had a higher AUC than VA (reader 1 – 0.83 vs 0.73, p = 0.07: reader 2–0.83 vs 0.71, p = 0.02). The optimal stress MBF cut-off value for detecting CAD was 2.05ml/g/min (Figure 2B). Conclusions. In this multicenter study, we show that global stress MBF reported as a single value can identify patients with CAD at least as accurately as VA performed by physicians experienced in the interpretation of stress CMR images.
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,cardiac & cardiovascular systems