Contemporary Issues in Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion CMR Imaging
Purpose of Review
This review highlights the development and application of quantitative myocardial perfusion by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and discusses recent innovations in this area.
First pass, contrast-enhanced CMR can accurately quantify myocardial perfusion in order to diagnose obstructive coronary artery disease and microvascular dysfunction. Quantitative analysis conveys additional prognostic information beyond other CMR findings. New, fully automated techniques may aid standardization of methods across centers.
CMR quantitative perfusion has robust performance for the diagnosis of obstructive coronary disease and microvascular dysfunction and conveys prognostic information. Adoption of automated post-processing and standardized protocols will further strengthen CMR in its position as the modality of choice for the evaluation of possible myocardial ischemia.
KeywordsCardiac magnetic resonance Myocardial perfusion imaging Myocardial blood flow Myocardial ischemia Microvascular disease Coronary artery disease
This work was supported by grants NIH T32 EB003841 and NIH HL131919-01A1.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of Interest
Austin A. Robinson declares no conflicts of interest.
Michael Salerno has received a grant from Astra Zeneca.
Christopher M. Kramer has received consulting fees from Bayer.
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.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
- 3.Herzog CA, Natwick T, Li S, Charytan DM. Comparative utilization and temporal trends in cardiac stress testing in US Medicare beneficiaries with and without chronic kidney disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.04.012.
- 4.Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, Mancini GB, Hayes SW, Hartigan PM, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the clinical outcomes utilizing revascularization and aggressive drug evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation. 2008;117(10):1283–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Schulz-Menger J, Bluemke DA, Bremerich J, Flamm SD, Fogel MA, Friedrich MG, et al. Standardized image interpretation and post processing in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) board of trustees task force on standardized post processing. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15(1):35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.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(1):65.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Sammut EC, Villa AD, Di Giovine G, Dancy L, Bosio F, Gibbs T, et al. Prognostic value of quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;11(5):686–94.Google Scholar
- 21.Broadbent DA, Biglands JD, Larghat A, Sourbron SP, Radjenovic A, Greenwood JP, et al. Myocardial blood flow at rest and stress measured with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: comparison of a distributed parameter model with a fermi function model. Magn Reson Med. 2013;70(6):1591–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, Berra K, Blankenship JC, Douglas PS, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(24):e44–e164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, Andreotti F, Arden C, Budaj A, et al. Task force members; ESC Committee for practice guidelines; document reviewers. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the task force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(38):2949–3003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Nagel E. MR-INFORM: stress perfusion imaging to guide the management of patients with stable coronary artery disease. Presentation Session 2017:401–412.Google Scholar
- 30.Foley JR, Kidambi A, Biglands JD, Maredia N, Dickinson CJ, Plein S, et al. A comparison of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging in left main stem or equivalent coronary artery disease: a CE-MARC substudy. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017;19(1):84.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Ta AD, Hsu L, Conn HM, Winkler S, Greve AM, Shanbhag SM, et al. Fully quantitative pixel-wise analysis of cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion improves discrimination of dark rim artifact from perfusion defects associated with epicardial coronary stenosis. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018;20(1):16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Chiribiri A, Hautvast GL, Lockie T, Schuster A, Bigalke B, Olivotti L, et al. Assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity and location: quantitative analysis of transmural perfusion gradients by high-resolution MRI versus FFR. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(5):600–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Mordini FE, Haddad T, Hsu L, Kellman P, Lowrey TB, Aletras AH, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of stress perfusion CMR in comparison with quantitative coronary angiography: fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and qualitative assessment. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(1):14–22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Becker MA, Cornel JH, Van de Ven, Peter M, van Rossum AC, Allaart CP, Germans T. The prognostic value of late gadolinium-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy: a review and meta-analysis. JACC: Cardiovasc Imaging 2018;11(9):1274–84.Google Scholar
- 41.Manka R, Paetsch I, Kozerke S, Moccetti M, Hoffmann R, Schroeder J, et al. Whole-heart dynamic three-dimensional magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for the detection of coronary artery disease defined by fractional flow reserve: determination of volumetric myocardial ischaemic burden and coronary lesion location. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(16):2016–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Papanastasiou G, Williams M, Dweck M, Mirsadraee S, Weir N, Fletcher A, et al. Multimodality quantitative assessments of myocardial perfusion using dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance and 15 O-labeled water positron emission tomography imaging. IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci. 2018;2(3):259–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 49.• Brown LA, Onciul SC, Broadbent DA, Johnson K, Fent GJ, Foley JR, et al. Fully automated, inline quantification of myocardial blood flow with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: repeatability of measurements in healthy subjects. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018;20(1):48 This study demonstrates the ability to perform inline, fully automated, quantification of myocardial blood flow that included free breathing motion correction with good intra-study and inter-study variability. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.Liu A, Wijesurendra RS, Francis JM, Robson MD, Neubauer S, Piechnik SK, et al. Adenosine stress and rest T1 mapping can differentiate between ischemic, infarcted, remote, and normal myocardium without the need for gadolinium contrast agents. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(1):27–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.Morton G, Chiribiri A, Ishida M, Hussain ST, Schuster A, Indermuehle A, et al. Quantification of absolute myocardial perfusion in patients with coronary artery disease: comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(16):1546–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar