Long-Term Prognostic Value of Stress Perfusion Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Purpose of review
The purpose of this review is to analyze the long-term prognostic value of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD).
Stress perfusion CMR provides high diagnostic accuracy for detection of CAD, with high sensitivity and relatively lower specificity. A normal stress perfusion CMR examination is highly predictive of overall low patient risk. Conversely, abnormal stress perfusion CMR results are associated with mortality and increased risk for adverse cardiac-related events. Stress perfusion CMR is a useful and robust tool for risk reclassification across different CAD risk categories, and most significant for patients of intermediate risk. Stress CMR is reliable for excluding clinically significant coronary artery disease in patients presenting with low-risk acute chest pain. An ischemic burden threshold of less than 1.5 cardiac segments has been found to be most appropriate for safe deferral from revascularization therapy. A stress perfusion CMR-guided strategy has been shown to be noninferior compared to fractional flow reserve (FFR) for revascularization in patients with stable CAD. In clinical practice, CMR offers a multiplicity of useful techniques besides stress perfusion which may add significant prognostic value when combined with the findings of the stress test itself.
Stress perfusion CMR is an accurate noninvasive diagnostic test for patients with suspected CAD and provides strong prognostic value across different risk categories.
KeywordsCardiovascular magnetic resonance Imaging Stress perfusion Coronary artery disease
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
References and Recommended Reading
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 4.Grizzard JD, Judd RM, Kim RJ. Cardiovascular MRI in practice: a teaching file approach. London: Springer; 2008. xv, 299p. p.Google Scholar
- 8.Schwitter J, Wacker CM, van Rossum AC, Lombardi M, Al-Saadi N, Ahlstrom H, et al. MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(4):480–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.•• Heitner JF, Kim RJ, Kim HW, Klem I, Shah DJ, Debs D, et al. Prognostic value of vasodilator stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a multicenter study with 48000 patient-years of follow-up. JAMA Cardiol. 2019; A powerful multicenter study with over 9000 patients evaluating the prognostic value of stress perfusion CMR.Google Scholar
- 11.Gargiulo P, Dellegrottaglie S, Bruzzese D, Savarese G, Scala O, Ruggiero D, et al. The prognostic value of normal stress cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(4):574–82.Google Scholar
- 13.Steel K, Broderick R, Gandla V, Larose E, Resnic F, Jerosch-Herold M, et al. Complementary prognostic values of stress myocardial perfusion and late gadolinium enhancement imaging by cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2009;120(14):1390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Greenwood JP, Herzog BA, Brown JM, Everett CC, Nixon J, Bijsterveld P, et al. Prognostic value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography in suspected coronary heart disease: long-term follow-up of a prospective, diagnostic accuracy cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2016.Google Scholar
- 21.•• Nagel E, Greenwood JP, McCann GP, Bettencourt N, Shah AM, Hussain ST, et al. Magnetic resonance perfusion or fractional flow reserve in coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(25):2418–28 A significant study which establishes a noninvasive management strategy guided by stress perfusion CMR as noninferior to the invasive FFR-guided approach.CrossRefGoogle Scholar