Comparison of stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with stress nuclear perfusion for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease
To assess the diagnostic performance of stress cardiac magnetic resonance (stress CMR) vs stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain.
SPECT imaging is the most utilized outpatient procedure in the United States. The diagnostic accuracy of SPECT can be limited by soft tissue attenuation and low spatial resolution. Stress CMR has much higher spatial resolution and without the susceptibility to soft tissue attenuation.
Eighty-seven patients without a history of CAD presenting to the ED with chest pain were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent both stress CMR and stress SPECT imaging within 12 hours of presentation. Both the stress imaging tests were interpreted immediately for clinical purposes and coronary angiography was performed if either was abnormal. Patients were considered to have significant CAD if identified by angiography (≥50%) or if a cardiac event (cardiac death, myocardial infarction or revascularization) occurred during follow-up (mean 2.6 ± 1.1 years).
Thirty-seven patients were referred for coronary angiography; 29 due to a positive stress test and eight patients for persistent chest pain despite two negative stress tests. There were 22 patients who had significant CAD (≥50%). The remaining patients were followed for 2.6 ± 1.1 years. At the conclusion of the follow-up period, there were four clinical events. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of CMR are 85%, 93%, and 89%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of stress SPECT are 84%, 91%, and 88%, respectively.
Stress CMR has similar diagnostic accuracy as stress SPECT in diagnosis of CAD.
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imaging myocardial perfusion imaging: SPECT coronary artery disease
Coronary artery disease
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease: a prospective trial
High-sensitivity C-reactive protein
Comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicenter, multivendor, randomized trial
- MR-IMPACT II
Magnetic resonance imaging for myocardial perfusion assessment in coronary artery disease trial: perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicenter, multivendor trial
Negative predictive value
Positron emission tomography
Positive predictive value
Single-photon emission computed tomography
- Stress CMR
Stress cardiac magnetic resonance
- 8.Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM, Bridges CR, Califf RM, Casey DE Jr, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-Elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:e1-157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Medicine ACoS. ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. p. 106.Google Scholar
- 21.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;29:480-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N, Al-Saadi N, Sauer E, Huettle K, et al. MR-IMPACT II: Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary artery disease Trial: Perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs. single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicentre, multivendor trial. Eur Heart J 2013;34:775-81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Matheijssen NA, Louwerenburg HW, van Rugge FP, Arens RP, Kauer B, de Roos A, et al. Comparison of ultrafast dipyridamole magnetic resonance imaging with dipyridamole SestaMIBI SPECT for detection of perfusion abnormalities in patients with one-vessel coronary artery disease: assessment by quantitative model fitting. Magn Reson Med 1996;35:221-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Hussain ST, Paul M, Plein S, McCann GP, Shah AM, Marber MS, et al. Design and rationale of the MR-INFORM study: Stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging to guide the management of patients with stable coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2012;14:65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.Ripley DP, Brown JM, Simon Walker PB, Sculpher M, McCann GP, Berry C, et al. Rational and design of the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary heart disease 2 trial (CE‐MARC 2): a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of diagnostic strategies in suspected coronary heart disease. Am Heart J 2015;169:17-24.e1.Google Scholar