Key result
Quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance measurements of regional stress myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve showed only moderate correlation to [15O]H2O PET (r = 0.39 and r = 0.36, respectively).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare CMR with [15O]H2O PET for quantifying absolute myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve in patients with CAD.
Does quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging accurately measure absolute myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve compared to [15O]H2O PET in patients with stable CAD?
Observational (n=59)
Blinded observers
No
Does quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging accurately measure absolute myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve compared to [15O]H2O PET in patients with stable CAD?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Quantitative CMR perfusion imaging shows modest correlation but good diagnostic concordance with [15O]H2O PET for assessing myocardial blood flow and flow reserve in patients with stable CAD.
Purpose To compare cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with [ 15 O]H 2 O positron emission tomography (PET) for quantification of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods Fifty-nine patients with stable CAD underwent CMR and [ 15 O]H 2 O PET. The CMR imaging protocol included late gadolinium enhancement to rule out presence of scar tissue and perfusion imaging using a dual sequence, single bolus technique. Absolute MBF was determined for the three main vascular territories at rest and during vasodilator stress. Results CMR measurements of regional stress MBF and MFR showed only moderate correlation to those obtained using PET ( r = 0.39; P < 0.001 for stress MBF and r = 0.36; P < 0.001 for MFR). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a significant bias of 0.2 ± 1.0 mL/min/g for stress MBF and − 0.5 ± 1.2 for MFR. CMR-derived stress MBF and MFR demonstrated area under the curves of respectively 0.72 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.79) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.83) and had optimal cutoff values of 2.35 mL/min/g and 2.25 for detecting abnormal myocardial perfusion, defined as [ 15 O]H 2 O PET-derived stress MBF ≤ 2.3 mL/min/g and MFR ≤ 2.5. Using these cutoff values, CMR and PET were concordant in 137 (77%) vascular territories for stress MBF and 135 (80%) vascular territories for MFR. Conclusion CMR measurements of stress MBF and MFR showed modest agreement to those obtained with [ 15 O]H 2 O PET. Nevertheless, stress MBF and MFR were concordant between CMR and [ 15 O]H 2 O PET in 77% and 80% of vascular territories, respectively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Everaars et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) (n=59). Quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion imaging vs. [15O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) was evaluated on Correlation of regional stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) between CMR and PET (r = 0.39, p=<0.001). Quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance measurements of regional stress myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve showed only moderate correlation to [15O]H2O PET (r = 0.39 and r = 0.36, respectively).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: