Cardiac MR Assessment of Coronary Arteries

Hamdy, Ahmed; Ishida, Masaki; Sakuma, Hajime

doi:10.22468/cvia.2016.00066

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 87 publications

(89 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A large, multi-center, prospective study is needed to confirm the present results. Second, we used both 1.5 T and 3 T CMR scanners, which differed in several respects, including diagnostic performance [ 23 ]. However, our results showed that CMRA with both 1.5 T and 3 T scanners provided a prognostic value.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term prognostic value of whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography

Nakamura

Ishida

Nakata

et al. 2021

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Coronary magnetic resonance angiography (CMRA) allows non-ionizing visualization of luminal narrowing in coronary artery disease (CAD). Although a prior study showed the usefulness of CMRA for risk stratification in short-term follow-up, the long-term prognostic value of CMRA remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term prognostic value of CMRA. Methods A total of 506 patients without history of myocardial infarction or prior coronary artery revascularization underwent free-breathing whole-heart CMRA between 2009 and 2015. Images were acquired using a 1.5 T or 3 T scanner and visually evaluated as the consensus decisions of two observers. Obstructive CAD on CMRA was defined as luminal narrowing of ≥ 50% in at least one coronary artery. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) comprised cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unstable angina. Results Obstructive CAD on CMRA was observed in 214 patients (42%). During follow-up (median, 5.6 years), 31 MACE occurred. Kaplan–Meier curve analysis revealed a significant difference in event-free survival between patients with and without obstructive CAD for MACE (log-rank, p = 0.003) and cardiac death (p = 0.012). Annualized event rates for MACE in patients with no obstructive CAD, 1-vessel disease, 2-vessel disease, and left-main or 3-vessel disease were 0.6%, 1.5%, 2.3%, and 3.6%, respectively (log-rank, p = 0.003). Cox proportional hazard regression analysis showed that, among obstructive CAD on CMRA and clinical risk factors (age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking, and family history of CAD), obstructive CAD and diabetes were significant predictors of MACE (hazard ratios, 2.9 [p = 0.005] and 2.2 [p = 0.034], respectively). In multivariate analysis, obstructive CAD remained an independent predictor (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.6 [p = 0.010]) after adjusting for diabetes. Addition of obstructive CAD to clinical risk factors significantly increased the global chi-square result from 8.3 to 13.8 (p = 0.022). Conclusions In long-term follow-up, free breathing whole heart CMRA allows non-invasive risk stratification for MACE and cardiac death and provides incremental prognostic value over conventional risk factors in patients without a history of myocardial infarction or prior coronary artery revascularization. The presence and severity of obstructive CAD detected by CMRA were associated with worse prognosis. Importantly, patients without obstructive CAD on CMRA displayed favorable prognosis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term prognostic value of whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography

Nakamura

Ishida

Nakata

et al. 2021

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, more recently, there has been an increased amount of research to improve the speed of acquisition times (parallel imaging, compressed sensing, translational respiratory motion correction with two-dimensional and three-dimensional image-based navigators, and undersampled twodimensional and three-dimensional patch-based reconstruction algorithms). Preliminary results for these techniques are promising, but these require continued research and validation (34)(35)(36)(37).…”

Section: Noninvasive Anatomic Assessment Of Coronary Artery Stenosismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MRA has a sensitivity and specificity of 93% and 42%, respectively, for the detection of coronary disease ( 33 ). Current free-breathing MRA protocols that obtain submillimeter isotropic resolution suffer from long imaging times, which makes it a less feasible examination ( 33 , 34 ). However, more recently, there has been an increased amount of research to improve the speed of acquisition times (parallel imaging, compressed sensing, translational respiratory motion correction with two-dimensional and three-dimensional image-based navigators, and undersampled two-dimensional and three-dimensional patch-based reconstruction algorithms).…”

Section: Noninvasive Anatomic Assessment Of Coronary Artery Stenosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Ischemic Heart Disease: Noninvasive Imaging Techniques and Findings

Sirajuddin¹,

Mirmomen²,

Kligerman³

et al. 2021

RadioGraphics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ischemic heart disease is a leading cause of death worldwide and comprises a large proportion of annual health care expenditure. Management of ischemic heart disease is now best guided by the physiologic significance of coronary artery stenosis. Invasive coronary angiography is the standard for diagnosing coronary artery stenosis. However, it is expensive and has risks including vascular access site complications and contrast material-induced nephropathy. Invasive coronary angiography requires fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement to determine the physiologic significance of a coronary artery stenosis. Multiple noninvasive cardiac imaging modalities can also anatomically delineate or functionally assess for significant coronary artery stenosis, as well as detect the presence of myocardial infarction (MI). While coronary CT angiography can help assess the degree of anatomic stenosis, its inability to assess the physiologic significance of lesions limits its specificity. Physiologic significance of coronary artery stenosis can be determined by cardiac MR vasodilator or dobutamine stress imaging, CT stress perfusion imaging, FFR CT, PET myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), SPECT MPI, and stress echocardiography. Clinically unrecognized MI, another clear indicator of physiologically significant coronary artery disease, is relatively common and is best evaluated with cardiac MRI. The authors illustrate the spectrum of imaging findings of ischemic heart disease (coronary artery disease, myocardial ischemia, and MI); highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the various noninvasive imaging methods used to assess ischemic heart disease, as illustrated by recent clinical trials; and summarize current indications and contraindications for noninvasive imaging techniques for detection of ischemic heart disease.Online supplemental material is available for this article.

show abstract

“…Herein, we offer a practical standard CMR protocol for beginners designed to be easy to follow and implement. This protocol guideline is based on previously reported CMR guidelines [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and includes sequence terminology used by vendors, essential MR physics [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17], imaging planes [2,18], field strength considerations [19][20][21][22][23][24][25], MRI-conditional devices [10,20,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33], drugs for stress tests [34], various CMR modules [16,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guideline for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging from the Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging—Part 1: Standardized Protocol

Kim

Park

et al. 2019

Cardiovasc Imaging Asia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is widely used in many areas of cardiovascular disease assessment. This is a practical, standard CMR protocol for beginners that is designed to be easy to follow and implement. This protocol guideline is based on previously reported CMR guidelines and includes sequence terminology used by vendors, essential MR physics, imaging planes, field strength considerations, MRI-conditional devices, drugs for stress tests, various CMR modules, and disease/symptom-based protocols based on a survey of cardiologists and various appropriate-use criteria. It will be of considerable help in planning and implementing tests. In addressing CMR usage and creating this protocol guideline, we particularly tried to include useful tips to overcome various practical issues and improve CMR imaging. We hope that this document will continue to standardize and simplify a patient-based approach to clinical CMR and contribute to the promotion of public health.

show abstract

Cardiac MR Assessment of Coronary Arteries

Cited by 8 publications

References 87 publications

Long-term prognostic value of whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography

Long-term prognostic value of whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography

Ischemic Heart Disease: Noninvasive Imaging Techniques and Findings

Guideline for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging from the Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging—Part 1: Standardized Protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About