Key result
CMR perfusion imaging detects hemodynamically severe coronary lesions with ~90% specificity using MPRI.
Why the study?
The diagnostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for detecting haemodynamically significant coronary lesions compared with coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve was not prospectively assessed.
Does cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging accurately detect haemodynamically significant coronary lesions compared to coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve in patients with suspected or known CAD?
Observational (n=43)
Does cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging accurately detect haemodynamically significant coronary lesions compared to coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve in patients with suspected or known CAD?
p-value: p=<0.001
CMRI with an MPRI cut-off of 1.5 provides high sensitivity and specificity for detecting hemodynamically significant coronary lesions compared to the invasive reference standard of FFR.
Authors
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May support noninvasive lesion severity assessment in CAD; extends diagnostic validation but leaves open larger outcome trials.
Rieber et al. (2006) conducted an observational in suspected or known coronary artery disease (n=43). Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging (CMRI) vs. Coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve (FFR) was evaluated on Detection of haemodynamically significant coronary lesions (p=<0.001). Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging with an MPRI cut-off of 1.5 distinguished haemodynamically severe from non-relevant coronary lesions with 88% sensitivity and 90% specificity.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: