Key result
Quantitative CMR perfusion provides a more objective alternative to visual assessment for CAD diagnosis.
Why the study?
Quantitative and semi-quantitative CMR myocardial perfusion measurements are needed to provide more objective assessments due to subjectivity in visual interpretation and challenges in multivessel disease.
May improve diagnostic objectivity in coronary heart disease; leaves open prospective outcome validation before adoption.
Myocardial perfusion imaging using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is becoming a widely used clinical tool. With the recent publication of large scale clinical trials providing evidence for its high diagnostic accuracy in coronary heart disease, there is a growing evidential basis for CMR based perfusion measurements as an alternative to the most commonly used method, Single Photon Emission Computer Tomography (1,2). Clinically, CMR perfusion images are usually interpreted visually. This however introduces subjectivity to the analysis and so quantitative and semi-quantitative measurements have been devised to allow more objective assessments of myocardial blood flow. Such measurements may prove to be important for diagnosing coronary heart disease, especially in the case of multiple vessel disease, where the lack of healthy reference myocardium can render visual assessment unreliable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Biglands et al. (2013) conducted an editorial in Coronary heart disease. Quantitative and semi-quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion measurements vs. Visual assessment and Single Photon Emission Computer Tomography was evaluated. Quantitative and semi-quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion measurements offer a more objective alternative to visual assessment for diagnosing coronary heart disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: