Current Cardiology Reports

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 70–75 | Cite as

Future prospects in magnetic resonance imaging

  • Mark Doyle
  • Robert W. W. Biederman
Article

Abstract

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is widely regarded as capable of providing a cornucopia of detailed diagnostic information. However, of that information, very little is truly unique, and can be obtained by a combination of alternate diagnostic modalities. Given this, it is anticipated that in the short term (1-5 years) CMR will find use primarily as a modality to service patients whose diagnosis is inaccessible to established technologies such as ultrasound and radionuclide imaging. Due to the evolving emphasis on finding new and more efficient approaches to disease detection and prevention, as outlined in a policy-setting speech given by the director of the National Institutes of Health, it is anticipated that the scientific and clinical trial communities will adopt CMR at a more rapid pace due to its inherent dimensional accuracy and comprehensive nature. CMR is particularly well suited to participate in the approaching explosion of nanoparticle technologies, as they are applied to diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. In the longer term (5-10 years), as paradigms of disease detection likely expand beyond evaluation of symptoms and risk factors, the comprehensive nature of information provided by CMR will drive the increase of its use as a primary, first-tier, diagnostic modality. In summary, the use of CMR will become increasingly common, and as understanding of disease processes expand, it will emerge as a diagnostic modality that provides an abundance of unique information.

Keywords

Single Photon Emission Compute Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Fractional Flow Reserve Eplerenone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Riederer SJ, Tasciyan T, Farzaneh F, et al.: MR fluoroscopy: technical feasibility. Magn Reson Med 1988, 8:1–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hernandez RJ, Aisen AM, Foo TK, Beekman RH: Thoracic cardiovascular anomalies in children: evaluation with a fast gradient-recalled-echo sequence with cardiac-triggered segmented acquisition. Radiology 1993, 188:775–780.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Doyle M, Walsh EG, Blackwell GG, Pohost GM: Block regional interpolation scheme for k-space (BRISK): a rapid cardiac imaging technique. Magn Reson Med 1995, 33:163–170. An approach to rapid cardiac imaging is presented based on a rarified sampling of MRI data (ê-space) leading to marked reduction in imaging times (factors of 2–4). This manuscript paves the way for further applications that amplify the utility of CMR in the domain of flow quantification, stenotic orifice, and gradient quantification, as well as 3D imaging.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moore CC, McVeigh ER, Zerhouni EA: Noninvasive measurement of three-dimensional myocardial deformation with tagged magnetic resonance imaging during graded local ischemia. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 1999, 1:207–222.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sakuma H, Saeed M, Takeda K, et al.: Quantification of coronary artery volume flow rate using fast velocity-encoded cine MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997, 168:1363–1367.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Panting JR, Gatehouse PD, Yang GZ, et al.: Abnormal subendocardial perfusion in cardiac syndrome X detected by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. N Engl J Med 2002, 346:1934–1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doyle M, Fuisz A, Biederman RWW, et al.: Value of magnetic resonance measured global myocardial perfusion levels for prediction of cardiac events: an NHLBI WISE study. J Cardiovascular Mag Reson 2003, 5:475–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gibson CM, Cannon CP, Murphy SA, et al.: Relationship of TIMI myocardial perfusion grade to mortality after administration of thrombolytic drugs.Circulation 2000, 101:125–130.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De BruyneB, Pijls NH, Heyndrickx GR, et al.: Pressure-derived fractional flow reserve to assess serial epicardial stenoses: theoretical basis and animal validation. Circulation 2000, 101:1840–1847.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Langerak SE, Kunz P, Vliegen HW, et al.: MR flow mapping in coronary artery bypass grafts: a validation study with Doppler flow measurements. Radiology 2002, 222:127–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nagel E, Klein C, Paetsch I, et al.: Magnetic resonance perfusion measurements for the noninvasive detection of coronary artery disease. Circulation 2003, 108:432–437. This paper demonstrates the clinical utility of quantitative evaluation of myocardial perfusion reserve by CMR first-pass perfusion imaging compared with quantitative coronary angiography.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hundley WG, Hillis LD, Hamilton CA, et al.: Assessment of coronary arterial restenosis with phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging measurements of coronary flow reserve. Circulation 2000, 101:2375–2381.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jerosch-Herold M, Wilke N, Stillman AE: Magnetic resonance quantification of the myocardial perfusion reserve with a Fermi function model for constrained deconvolution. Med Physics 1998, 25:73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kwong RY, Schussheim AE, Rekhraj S, et al.: Detecting acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation 2003, 107:531–537. Demonstrates the feasibility of using CMR in the emergency room to triage patients with acute coronary syndromes.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kellman P, Arai AE, McVeigh ER, Aletras AH: Phase-sensitive inversion recovery for detecting myocardial infarction using gadolinium-delayed hyperenhancement. Magn Reson Med 2002, 47:372–383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim RJ, Hillenbrand HB, Judd RM: Evaluation of myocardial viability by MRI. Herz 2000, 25:417–430. This manuscripts trace the beginnings of the use of CMR to detect myocardial viability. It is somewhat polarized in the issue of “timing” relative to the paper by Kramer et al. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kramer CM, Rogers WJ Jr, Mankad S, et al.: Contractile reserve and contrast uptake pattern by magnetic resonance imaging and functional recovery after reperfused myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000, 36:1835–1840. Unstated but demonstrated is the unique ability to apply delayed hyperenhancement four times as fast as SPECT, without radionuclide use and with a log-fold improvement in spatial resolution leading to the detection of often-missed endocardial lesions.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klein C, Nekolla SG, Bengel FM, et al.: Assessment of myocardial viability with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with positron emission tomography. Circulation 2002, 105:162–167. Using the standard hyperenhancement techniques, CMR was compared with PET, revealing that myocardial viability by CMR was at least as good as PET, the gold standard, but with higher sensitivity and specificity than SPECT.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuhl HP, Beek AM, van der Weerdt AP, et al.: Myocardial viability in chronic ischemic heart disease: comparison of contrastenhanced magnetic resonance imaging with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003, 41:1341–1348.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Egred M, Al-Mohammad A, Waiter GD, et al.: Detection of scarred and viable myocardium using a new magnetic resonance imaging technique: blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) MRI. Heart (British Cardiac Society) 2003, 89:738–744.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fayad ZA, Fuster V: The human high-risk plaque and its detection by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Cardiol 2001, 88(2-A):42E-45E. The imaging of the near future is described in which clinically available high resolution CMR of the aortic wall and intraluminal pathology is described. The concept of dynamic plaque is furthered.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Botnar RM, Stuber M, Kissinger KV, et al.: Noninvasive coronary vessel wall and plaque imaging with magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation 2000, 102:2582.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Buchthal SD, den Hollander JA, Merz CN, et al.: Abnormal myocardial phosphorus-31 nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy in women with chest pain but normal coronary angiograms. N Engl J Med 2000, 342:829–835. This paper shows that the widely available 1.5T clinical systems can be used to perform diagnostic spectroscopy.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pohost GM, Meduri A, Razmi RM, et al.: Cardiac MR spectroscopy in the new millennium. Rays 2001, 26:93–107.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bottini PB, Carr AA, Prisant LM, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging compared to echocardiography to assess left ventricular mass in the hypertensive patient. Am J Hypertens 1995, 8:221–228. Landmark paper establishing the log-fold reduction in patient requirements for the determination of left ventricular mass, volume, and ejection fraction as compared with echocardiography for clinical trials. This manuscript institutes the paradigm for using CMR in preference to conventional imaging modalities due to its reproducibility, efficiency, and cost saving.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bellenger NG, Davies LC, Francis JM, et al.: Reduction in sample size for studies of remodeling in heart failure by the use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2000, 2:271–278. Going beyond the paper by Bottini et al. [25], the authors show that, when compared with multiple gated acquisition and echocardiography, CMR had higher reproducibility and lower standard deviations.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    The Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD) of the NIH. National Institutes of Health. Bethesda; December 5, 2002.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pitt B, Reichek N, Willenbrock R, et al.: Effects of eplerenone, enalapril, and eplerenone/enalapril in patients with essential hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy: the 4E-left ventricular hypertrophy study. Circulation 2003, 108:1831–1838.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wickline SA, Lanza GM: Nanotechnology for molecular imaging and targeted therapy. Circulation 2003, 107:1092–1095.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lanza GM, Yu X, Winter PM, et al.: Targeted antiproliferative drug delivery to vascular smooth muscle cells with a magnetic resonance imaging nanoparticle contrast agent: implications for rational therapy of restenosis. Circulation 2002, 106:2842–2847. This paper shows an in vivo application of nanotechnology used to target delivery of a therapeutic medication and to monitor and dose that medication using CMR.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McConnell MV, Stuber M, Manning WJ: Clinical role of coronary magnetic resonance angiography in the diagnosis of anomalous coronary arteries. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2000, 2:217–224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim WY, Danias PG, Stuber M, et al.: Coronary magnetic resonance angiography for the detection of coronary stenoses. N Engl J Med 2001, 345:1863–1869. The first multicenter, international, randomized clinical trial is described, whereby prior to radiographic angiography, CMR is performed, demonstrating that life-threatening lesions could be accurately detected with a sensitivity and specificity paralleling the traditional catheterization laboratory. Importantly, this is a multicenter trial and is thus not biased by any one expert site.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Doyle
    • 1
  • Robert W. W. Biederman
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of CardiologyAllegheny General HospitalPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations