Key result
Visual splenic switch-off was significantly more frequent in true-negative compared to false-negative adenosine stress CMR studies (80.6% vs. 36.8%, p<0.001), serving as a reliable marker of myocardial stress adequacy.
Why the study?
False-negative CMR perfusion results can stem from inadequate stress responses despite adequate clinical or heart-rate response to adenosine, prompting evaluation of splenic switch-off markers to differentiate true-negative from false-negative findings.
Does the assessment of splenic switch-off (SSO) markers during 3D adenosine stress perfusion CMR improve the differentiation of true-negative from false-negative studies in patients with known or suspected CAD?
Observational (n=179)
Blinded image analysis
Yes
Does the assessment of splenic switch-off (SSO) markers during 3D adenosine stress perfusion CMR improve the differentiation of true-negative from false-negative studies in patients with known or suspected CAD?
Splenic switch-off markers during adenosine stress CMR can help differentiate true-negative from false-negative perfusion studies, improving diagnostic confidence.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
SSO markers may flag inadequate adenosine stress in CMR perfusion; leaves open prospective FFR validation before clinical use.
False-negative cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion results may arise from inadequate stress responses, even when patients exhibit an adequate clinical or heart-rate response to adenosine. This study aimed to explore the ability of qualitative and quantitative splenic switch-off (SSO) markers to differentiate true-negative from potentially false-negative adenosine stress-perfusion CMR findings in a cohort where fractional flow reserve (FFR) was used to adjudicate lesion significance. Patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) from five centers underwent three-dimensional (3D) adenosine stress perfusion CMR and coronary angiography with FFR. SSO was assessed qualitatively using both standard stress-to-rest (SSO) and a stress-only (SSO stress ) approach. In addition, quantitative signal intensity (SI) ratios were assessed, including the splenic stress-to-rest SI-ratio (SI stress/rest ) and the spleen-to-myocardium SI ratio at stress (SI spleen/myocarcium ). The diagnostic accuracy of these measures was evaluated using cross-validated area under the curve (cvAUC) analysis. Among 179 patients (mean age 63 ± 10 years; 130 male), SSO prevalence was 73% (130/179) and was significantly more frequent in true-negative than false-negative CMR cases (80.6% [54/67] vs 36.8% [7/19], p < 0.001). SSO stress showed moderate agreement (κ = 0.60) and robust diagnostic performance (AUC 0.80), as compared to SSO. Splenic SI stress/rest and SI spleen/myocarcium at stress demonstrated high predictive accuracy for visual SSO, with cvAUCs of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90–0.96) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86–0.95), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio of SSO for true-negative CMR was 1.70, while the negative likelihood ratio was 0.24. Qualitative and quantitative splenic-switch off metrics classified 77%–80% (66-69/86) of negative CMR cases correctly as true- or potentially false-negatives, with sensitivities ranging from 81.4% to 91.2%. Clinically applicable cut-offs for differentiating true- and false-negative studies with splenic SI stress/rest and SI spleen/myocarcium at stress were identified as ≤0.32 and ≤0.38, respectively. In a multicenter cohort using FFR-adjudicated reference for lesion severity, qualitative SSO and quantitative SI metrics were associated with myocardial stress adequacy and these markers may improve the interpretation of negative stress-perfusion CMR studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Károlyi et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=179). Splenic switch-off (SSO) vs. Absence of SSO was evaluated on Prevalence of visual splenic switch-off in true-negative versus false-negative CMR studies (p=<0.001). Visual splenic switch-off was significantly more frequent in true-negative compared to false-negative adenosine stress CMR studies (80.6% vs. 36.8%, p<0.001), serving as a reliable marker of myocardial stress adequacy.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: