Advertisement

Cardiac Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

  • Tarun K. MittalEmail author
Chapter
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

Cardiac computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) now form an important part of evaluation of patients with diseases of the heart and aorta. This has become possible due to improvements in technology. ECG-gated CT has become the non-invasive technique of choice for assessment of coronary artery disease while MRI allows accurate assessment of ventricular function, ischaemia, viability and tissue characterisation in patients with heart failure, cardiomyopathy, valvular heart disease. Both techniques are valuable in assessment of cardiac masses, congenital heart conditions as well as diseases of the pericardium and aorta. CT has an important role in patients with acute aortic syndromes and post-surgical patients. This chapter will discuss the essential technical aspects underlying cardiac CT and MRI scanning and their clinical applications.

Keywords

Acute aortic syndromes Cardiac computed tomography Cardiomyopathy Congenital heart conditions ECG-gating Magnetic resonance imaging 

References

  1. 1.
    Hendel RC, Patel MR, Kramer CM, Poon M, Carr JC, Gerstad NA, et al. ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American college of cardiology foundation quality strategic directions committee appropriateness criteria working group, American college of radiology, society of cardiovascular computed tomography, society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance, American society of nuclear cardiology, North American society for cardiac imaging, society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions, and society of interventional radiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1475–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM, Mark D, Min J, O'Gara P, et al. ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. A report of the American college of cardiology foundation appropriate use criteria task force, the society of cardiovascular computed tomography, the American college of radiology, the American heart association, the American society of echocardiography, the American society of nuclear cardiology, the North American society for cardiovascular imaging, the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions, and the society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Circulation. 2010;122:e525–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abbara S, Blanke P, Maroules CD, Cheezum M, Choi AD, Han BK, et al. SCCT guidelines for the performance and acquisition of coronary computed tomographic angiography: a report of the society of cardiovascular computed tomography guidelines committee: endorsed by the North American society for cardiovascular imaging (NASCI). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2016;10:435–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halliburton SS, Abbara S, Chen MY, Gentry R, Mahesh M, Raff GL, et al. SCCT guidelines on radiation dose and dose-optimization strategies in cardiovascular CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011;5:198–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ridgway JP. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance physics for clinicians: part I. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2010;12:71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nazarian S, Hansford R, Rahsepar AA, Weltin V, McVeigh D, Gucuk Ipek E, et al. Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac devices. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:2555–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Raphael CE, Vassiliou V, Alpendurada F, Prasad SK, Pennell DJ, Mohiaddin RH. Clinical value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with MR-conditional pacemakers. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17:1178–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mowatt G, Cummins E, Waugh N, Walker S, Cook J, Jia X, et al. Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of coronary artery disease. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12(17):1–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    NICE. Chest pain of recent onset (standing committee A update). 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-cgwave0774/documents.
  10. 10.
    Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, Andreotti F, Arden C, Budaj A, et al. 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;34:2949–3003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abazid RM, Smettei OA, Khalaf HH, Soomro T, Ali Dar M, Tamim M, et al. The role of computed tomographic angiography in predicting left anterior descending artery graftability when catheter angiography is inconclusive. J Thorac Imaging. 2018;33(1):55–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raff GL, Hoffmann U, Udelson JE. Trials of imaging use in the emergency department for acute chest pain. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10:338–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li M, Zhou T, Yang LF, Peng ZH, Ding J, Sun G. Diagnostic accuracy of myocardial magnetic resonance perfusion to diagnose ischemic stenosis with fractional flow reserve as reference. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:1098–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Picard MH, Friedrich MG, Kwong RY, Stone GW, et al. Comparative definitions for moderate-severe ischemia in stress nuclear, echocardiography, and magnetic resonance imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:593–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klumpp B, Miller S, Seeger A, May AE, Gawaz MP, Claussen CD, et al. Is the diagnostic yield of myocardial stress perfusion MRI impaired by three-vessel coronary artery disease? Acta Radiol. 2015;56:143–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sorgaard MH, Kofoed KF, Linde JJ, George RT, Rochitte CE, Feuchtner G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of static CT perfusion for the detection of myocardial ischemia. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2016;10:450–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bettencourt N, Chiribiri A, Schuster A, Ferreira N, Sampaio F, Pires-Morais G, et al. Direct comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance and multidetector computed tomography stress-rest perfusion imaging for detection of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1099–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gonzalez JA, Lipinski MJ, Flors L, Shaw PW, Kramer CM, Salerno M. Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography angiography, computed tomography perfusion, and computed tomography-fractional flow reserve in functional myocardial ischemia assessment versus invasive fractional flow reserve. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116:1469–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JGF, Coats AJS, et al. 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2016;69:1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gonzalez JA, Kramer CM. Role of imaging techniques for diagnosis, prognosis and management of heart failure patients: cardiac magnetic resonance. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2015;12:276–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hundley WG, Bluemke DA, Finn JP, Flamm SD, Fogel MA, Friedrich MG, et al. ACCF/ACR/AHA/NASCI/SCMR 2010 expert consensus document on cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a report of the American college of cardiology foundation task force on expert consensus documents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2614–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Messroghli DR, Moon JC, Ferreira VM, Grosse-Wortmann L, He T, Kellman P, et al. Clinical recommendations for cardiovascular magnetic resonance mapping of T1, T2, T2∗ and extracellular volume: a consensus statement by the society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (SCMR) endorsed by the European association for cardiovascular imaging (EACVI). J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017;19:75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rizvi A, Deano RC, Bachman DP, Xiong G, Min JK, Truong QA. Analysis of ventricular function by CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, De Bonis M, Hamm C, Holm PJ, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2739–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gulsin GS, Singh A, McCann GP. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the evaluation of heart valve disease. BMC Med Imaging. 2017;17:67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bax JJ, Delgado V. Advanced imaging in valvular heart disease. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017;14:209–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mooney J, Sellers SL, Ohana M, Cavalcante JL, Arepalli CD, Grover R, et al. Imaging for structural heart procedures: focus on computed tomography. EuroIntervention. 2017;13:AA85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rajiah P, Schoenhagen P. The role of computed tomography in pre-procedural planning of cardiovascular surgery and intervention. Insights Imaging. 2013;4:671–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Han BK, Rigsby CK, Hlavacek A, Leipsic J, Nicol ED, Siegel MJ, et al. Computed tomography imaging in patients with congenital heart disease part I: rationale and utility. An expert consensus document of the society of cardiovascular computed tomography (SCCT): Endorsed by the society of pediatric radiology (SPR) and the North American society of cardiac imaging (NASCI). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9:475–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Valsangiacomo Buechel ER, Grosse-Wortmann L, Fratz S, Eichhorn J, Sarikouch S, Greil GF, et al. Indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance in children with congenital and acquired heart disease: an expert consensus paper of the Imaging Working Group of the AEPC and the cardiovascular magnetic resonance section of the EACVI. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:281–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Klein AL, Abbara S, Agler DA, Appleton CP, Asher CR, Hoit B, et al. American Society of Echocardiography clinical recommendations for multimodality cardiovascular imaging of patients with pericardial disease: endorsed by the Society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance and society of cardiovascular computed tomography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26:965–1012.e15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hoey ET, Mankad K, Puppala S, Gopalan D, Sivananthan MU. MRI and CT appearances of cardiac tumours in adults. Clin Radiol. 2009;64:1214–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Erbel R, Aboyans V, Boileau C, Bossone E, Bartolomeo RD, Eggebrecht H, et al. 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases: document covering acute and chronic aortic diseases of the thoracic and abdominal aorta of the adult. The task force for the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases of the European society of cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2873–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jungmann F, Emrich T, Mildenberger P, Emrich AL, Düber C, Kreitner KF. Multidetector computed tomography angiography (MD-CTA) of coronary artery bypass grafts–Update 2017. Rofo. 2018;190:237–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Imaging, Harefield HospitalRoyal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
  2. 2.Imperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations