Among patients with suspected coronary heart disease (CHD), rates of invasive angiography are considered too high. OBJECTIVE To test the hypothesis that among patients with suspected CHD, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)-guided care is superior to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines-directed care and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS)-guided care in reducing unnecessary angiography. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter, 3-parallel group, randomized clinical trial using a pragmatic comparative effectiveness design. From 6 UK hospitals, 1202 symptomatic patients with suspected CHD and a CHD pretest likelihood of 10% to 90% were recruited. First randomization was November 23, 2012; last 12-month follow-up was March 12, 2016. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned (240:481:481) to management according to UK NICE guidelines or to guided care based on the results of CMR or MPS testing. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Theprimaryendpointwasprotocol-definedunnecessarycoronary angiography (normal fractional flow reserve >0.8 or quantitative coronary angiography [QCA] showing no percentage diameter stenosis Ն70% in 1 view or Ն50% in 2 orthogonal views in all coronary vessels Ն2.5 mm diameter) within 12 months. Secondary end points included positive angiography, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and procedural complications. RESULTS Among 1202 symptomatic patients (mean age, 56.3 years [SD, 9.0]; women, 564 [46.9%] ; mean CHD pretest likelihood, 49.5% [SD, 23.8%]), number of patients with invasive coronary angiography after 12 months was 102 in the NICE guidelines group (42.5% [95% CI, 36.2%-49.0%])], 85 in the CMR group (17.7% [95% CI, 14.4%-21.4%]); and 78 in the MPS group (16.2% [95% CI, 13.0%-19.8%]). Study-defined unnecessary angiography occurred in 69 (28.8%) in the NICE guidelines group, 36 (7.5%) in the CMR group, and 34 (7.1%) in the MPS group; adjusted odds ratio of unnecessary angiography: CMR group vs NICE guidelines group, 0.21 (95% CI, 0.12-0.34, P < .001); CMR group vs the MPS group, 1.27 (95% CI, 0.79-2.03, P = .32). Positive angiography proportions were 12.1% (95% CI, 8.2%-16.9%; 29/240 patients) for the NICE guidelines group, 9.8% (95% CI, 7.3%-12.8%; 47/481 patients) for the CMR group, and 8.7% (95% CI, 6.4%-11.6%; 42/481 patients) for the MPS group. A MACE was reported at a minimum of 12 months in 1.7% of patients in the NICE guidelines group, 2.5% in the CMR group, and 2.5% in the MPS group (adjusted hazard ratios: CMR group vs NICE guidelines group, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.52-3.57]; CMR group vs MPS group, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.46-1.95]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In patients with suspected angina, investigation by CMR resulted in a lower probability of unnecessary angiography within 12 months than NICE guideline-directed care, with no statistically significant difference between CMR and MPS strategies. There were no statistically significant differences in MACE rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01664858.
Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.
BackgroundMyocardial infarction (MI) leads to complex changes in left ventricular (LV) haemodynamics that are linked to clinical outcomes. We hypothesize that LV blood flow kinetic energy (KE) is altered in MI and is associated with LV function and infarct characteristics. This study aimed to investigate the intra-cavity LV blood flow KE in controls and MI patients, using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) four-dimensional (4D) flow assessment.MethodsForty-eight patients with MI (acute-22; chronic-26) and 20 age/gender-matched healthy controls underwent CMR which included cines and whole-heart 4D flow. Patients also received late gadolinium enhancement imaging for infarct assessment. LV blood flow KE parameters were indexed to LV end-diastolic volume and include: averaged LV, minimal, systolic, diastolic, peak E-wave and peak A-wave KEiEDV. In addition, we investigated the in-plane proportion of LV KE (%) and the time difference (TD) to peak E-wave KE propagation from base to mid-ventricle was computed. Association of LV blood flow KE parameters to LV function and infarct size were investigated in all groups.ResultsLV KEiEDV was higher in controls than in MI patients (8.5 ± 3 μJ/ml versus 6.5 ± 3 μJ/ml, P = 0.02). Additionally, systolic, minimal and diastolic peak E-wave KEiEDV were lower in MI (P < 0.05). In logistic-regression analysis, systolic KEiEDV (Beta = − 0.24, P < 0.01) demonstrated the strongest association with the presence of MI. In multiple-regression analysis, infarct size was most strongly associated with in-plane KE (r = 0.5, Beta = 1.1, P < 0.01). In patients with preserved LV ejection fraction (EF), minimal and in-plane KEiEDV were reduced (P < 0.05) and time difference to peak E-wave KE propagation during diastole increased (P < 0.05) when compared to controls with normal EF.ConclusionsReduction in LV systolic function results in reduction in systolic flow KEiEDV. Infarct size is independently associated with the proportion of in-plane LV KE. Degree of LV impairment is associated with TD of peak E-wave KE. In patient with preserved EF post MI, LV blood flow KE mapping demonstrated significant changes in the in-plane KE, the minimal KEiEDV and the TD. These three blood flow KE parameters may offer novel methods to identify and describe this patient population.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12968-018-0483-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
PurposeTo validate three widely‐used acceleration methods in four‐dimensional (4D) flow cardiac MR; segmented 4D‐spoiled‐gradient‐echo (4D‐SPGR), 4D‐echo‐planar‐imaging (4D‐EPI), and 4D‐k‐t Broad‐use Linear Acquisition Speed‐up Technique (4D‐k‐t BLAST).Materials and MethodsAcceleration methods were investigated in static/pulsatile phantoms and 25 volunteers on 1.5 Tesla MR systems. In phantoms, flow was quantified by 2D phase‐contrast (PC), the three 4D flow methods and the time‐beaker flow measurements. The later was used as the reference method. Peak velocity and flow assessment was done by means of all sequences. For peak velocity assessment 2D PC was used as the reference method. For flow assessment, consistency between mitral inflow and aortic outflow was investigated for all pulse‐sequences. Visual grading of image quality/artifacts was performed on a four‐point‐scale (0 = no artifacts; 3 = nonevaluable).ResultsFor the pulsatile phantom experiments, the mean error for 2D PC = 1.0 ± 1.1%, 4D‐SPGR = 4.9 ± 1.3%, 4D‐EPI = 7.6 ± 1.3% and 4D‐k‐t BLAST = 4.4 ± 1.9%. In vivo, acquisition time was shortest for 4D‐EPI (4D‐EPI = 8 ± 2 min versus 4D‐SPGR = 9 ± 3 min, P < 0.05 and 4D‐k‐t BLAST = 9 ± 3 min, P = 0.29). 4D‐EPI and 4D‐k‐t BLAST had minimal artifacts, while for 4D‐SPGR, 40% of aortic valve/mitral valve (AV/MV) assessments scored 3 (nonevaluable). Peak velocity assessment using 4D‐EPI demonstrated best correlation to 2D PC (AV:r = 0.78, P < 0.001; MV:r = 0.71, P < 0.001). Coefficient of variability (CV) for net forward flow (NFF) volume was least for 4D‐EPI (7%) (2D PC:11%, 4D‐SPGR: 29%, 4D‐k‐t BLAST: 30%, respectively).ConclusionIn phantom, all 4D flow techniques demonstrated mean error of less than 8%. 4D‐EPI demonstrated the least susceptibility to artifacts, good image quality, modest agreement with the current reference standard for peak intra‐cardiac velocities and the highest consistency of intra‐cardiac flow quantifications. Level of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:272–281.
BackgroundNon-invasive assessment of myocardial ischaemia is a cornerstone of the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Measurement of myocardial blood flow (MBF) using positron emission tomography (PET) is the current reference standard for non-invasive quantification of myocardial ischaemia. Dynamic myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) offers an alternative to PET and a recently developed method with automated inline perfusion mapping has shown good correlation of MBF values between CMR and PET. This study assessed the repeatability of myocardial perfusion mapping by CMR in healthy subjects.MethodsForty-two healthy subjects were recruited and underwent adenosine stress and rest perfusion CMR on two visits. Scans were repeated with a minimum interval of 7 days. Intrastudy rest and stress MBF repeatability were assessed with a 15-min interval between acquisitions. Interstudy rest and stress MBF and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) were measured for global myocardium and regionally for coronary territories and slices.ResultsThere was no significant difference in intrastudy repeated global rest MBF (0.65 ± 0.13 ml/g/min vs 0.62 ± 0.12 ml/g/min, p = 0.24, repeatability coefficient (RC) =24%) or stress (2.89 ± 0.56 ml/g/min vs 2.83 ± 0.64 ml/g/min, p = 0.41, RC = 29%) MBF. No significant difference was seen in interstudy repeatability for global rest MBF (0.64 ± 0.13 ml/g/min vs 0.64 ± 0.15 ml/g/min, p = 0.80, RC = 32%), stress MBF (2.71 ± 0.61 ml/g/min vs 2.55 ± 0.57 ml/g/min, p = 0.12, RC = 33%) or MPR (4.24 ± 0.69 vs 3.73 ± 0.76, p = 0.25, RC = 36%). Regional repeatability was good for stress (RC = 30–37%) and rest MBF (RC = 32–36%) but poorer for MPR (RC = 35–43%). Within subject coefficient of variation was 8% for rest and 11% for stress within the same study, and 11% for rest and 12% for stress between studies.ConclusionsFully automated, inline, myocardial perfusion mapping by CMR shows good repeatability that is similar to the published PET literature. Both rest and stress MBF show better repeatability than MPR, particularly in regional analysis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12968-018-0462-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.