Looks like we'll have to come back on the subject in a few years from now. But my hopes are still very high!
Feb 28, 2010
C13/F19 - see you in 2015!!!
Looks like we'll have to come back on the subject in a few years from now. But my hopes are still very high!
Quantitative versus Qualitative Analysis in CMR
The very practical and fast qualitative analysis used by most physicians in CMR does the job in the clinical scenario:
Head to head comparison of quantitative versus visual analysis of contrast CMR in the setting of myocardial stunning after STEMI: implications on late systolic function and patient outcome.
Husser O, Bodi V, Sanchis J, Nunez J, Mainar L, Merlos P, Lopez-Lereu MP, Monmeneu JV, Chaustre F, Rumiz E, Riegger GA, Chorro FJ, Llacer A.
Department of Cardiology, Hospital Clinico Universitario, INCLIVA, Universidad de Valencia, Blasco Ibanez 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
To compare a quantitative assessment of contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with visual analysis for predicting depressed ejection fraction (dEF) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). 192 patients underwent CMR at 1 week and 6 months after STEMI. Three quantitative (initial slope, maximal signal intensity and contrast delay in first-pass imaging) and 2 visual perfusion indexes (hypoenhancement in first-pass and microvascular obstruction in late enhancement imaging (LE)) were determined. Quantification of infarct mass and visual assessment of the extent of transmural necrosis (ETN) were also performed. At 6 months, 69 patients displayed dEF. During follow-up (mean 655 days) 20 MACE (death, re-infarction, re-admission for heart failure) occurred. Perfusion quantification took longer (P < 0.001) and, in ROC curve analyses and the C-statistic, was not superior to visual perfusion analysis for predicting late EF or MACE (P = ns). Similarly, infarct size quantification was not superior to visual assessment of ETN (P = ns). In multivariate analyses, only visual assessment of ETN (per segment) predicted dEF (OR 1.30 95%CI [1.04-1.61], P = 0.02) and MACE (HR 1.38 95%CI [1.19-1.60], P < 0.001). Visual analysis of CMR after STEMI is not time consuming and predicts dEF and MACE comparable to quantification. ETN was the strongest parameter.
Head to head comparison of quantitative versus visual analysis of contrast CMR in the setting of myocardial stunning after STEMI: implications on late systolic function and patient outcome.
Husser O, Bodi V, Sanchis J, Nunez J, Mainar L, Merlos P, Lopez-Lereu MP, Monmeneu JV, Chaustre F, Rumiz E, Riegger GA, Chorro FJ, Llacer A.
Department of Cardiology, Hospital Clinico Universitario, INCLIVA, Universidad de Valencia, Blasco Ibanez 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
To compare a quantitative assessment of contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with visual analysis for predicting depressed ejection fraction (dEF) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). 192 patients underwent CMR at 1 week and 6 months after STEMI. Three quantitative (initial slope, maximal signal intensity and contrast delay in first-pass imaging) and 2 visual perfusion indexes (hypoenhancement in first-pass and microvascular obstruction in late enhancement imaging (LE)) were determined. Quantification of infarct mass and visual assessment of the extent of transmural necrosis (ETN) were also performed. At 6 months, 69 patients displayed dEF. During follow-up (mean 655 days) 20 MACE (death, re-infarction, re-admission for heart failure) occurred. Perfusion quantification took longer (P < 0.001) and, in ROC curve analyses and the C-statistic, was not superior to visual perfusion analysis for predicting late EF or MACE (P = ns). Similarly, infarct size quantification was not superior to visual assessment of ETN (P = ns). In multivariate analyses, only visual assessment of ETN (per segment) predicted dEF (OR 1.30 95%CI [1.04-1.61], P = 0.02) and MACE (HR 1.38 95%CI [1.19-1.60], P < 0.001). Visual analysis of CMR after STEMI is not time consuming and predicts dEF and MACE comparable to quantification. ETN was the strongest parameter.
Feb 20, 2010
Anatomy by CCT - Ischemia by CMR: a perfect combination?
The manuscript previously posted by Dr. Florangel is a definite must read for anyone studying CAD by advanced imaging. Before the article, we could only compare data on anatomy versus perfusion with SPECT/PET. This new data is really important and illustrates how can a non-radiating method be complementary to CCT. One could argue that every patient with low/intermediate risk CAD by anatomy should undergo a stress perfusion by CMR. More to be seen.
PS: for the ones who don't understand the picture: cheese and goiabada are a traditional desert in Brazil, where the acid and sweet taste of each food complements each other into a delicious flavour...
Feb 17, 2010
Low to Intermediate Probability of Coronary Artery Disease: Comparison of Coronary CT Angiography with First-Pass MR Myocardial Perfusion Imaging1
Jan G. J. Groothuis, MD, Aernout M. Beek, MD, Stijn L. Brinckman, MD, Martijn R. Meijerink, MD, Simon C. Koestner, MD, Robin Nijveldt, MD, PhD, Marco J. W. Götte, MD, PhD, Mark B. M. Hofman, PhD, Cornelis van Kuijk, MD, PhD and Albert C. van Rossum, MD, PhD
Abstract
Purpose: To compare coronary computed tomographic (CT) angiography with first-pass magnetic resonance (MR) myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with chest pain and low to intermediate probability of coronary artery disease (CAD).
Materials and Methods: Local ethics committee approval and patient written informed consent were obtained. Patients with chest pain and low to intermediate pretest probability of CAD underwent both coronary CT angiography and MR myocardial perfusion imaging. Coronary CT angiographic and MR myocardial perfusion images were analyzed qualitatively by blinded observers. Obstructive CAD was defined as more than 50% diameter stenosis at coronary CT angiography. Data were expressed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated from binomial expression.
Results: In 145 (94.2%) of 154 eligible patients, both coronary CT angiography and MR myocardial perfusion imaging were performed successfully. Mean age was 57 years ± 10 (standard deviation), and 45.5% of patients were male. Mean interval between coronary CT angiography and MR myocardial perfusion imaging was 4.6 days ± 3.0; median was 5.0 days. CT coronary angiography revealed obstructive CAD in 52 (35.9%) patients and 78 (17.9%) coronary arteries. At MR myocardial perfusion imaging, myocardial ischemia was demonstrated in 33 (22.8%) patients and 59 (13.6%) vessel territories. Of patients without CAD at coronary CT angiography, 90.5% (57 of 63; 95%CI: 82.6%, 95.0%) had normal myocardial perfusion at MR myocardial perfusion imaging. Of patients with nonobstructive CAD, 83.3% (25 of 30; 95% CI: 69.5%, 91.6%) had normal myocardial perfusion at MR myocardial perfusion imaging. Myocardial ischemia was detected at MR myocardial perfusion imaging in 42.3% (22 of 52; 95% CI: 29.5%, 56%) of patients with obstructive CAD at coronary CT angiography.
Conclusion: MR myocardial perfusion imaging and coronary CT angiography have complementary roles in evaluation of patients who are suspected of having CAD. Coronary CT angiography can be used to reliably rule out CAD, but its capability to demonstrate hemodynamically significant CAD is limited. The combination of both techniques enables the clinician to evaluate morphology and functional relevance of CAD comprehensively and noninvasively.
Radiology. February 2010; 254 (2)
Jan G. J. Groothuis, MD, Aernout M. Beek, MD, Stijn L. Brinckman, MD, Martijn R. Meijerink, MD, Simon C. Koestner, MD, Robin Nijveldt, MD, PhD, Marco J. W. Götte, MD, PhD, Mark B. M. Hofman, PhD, Cornelis van Kuijk, MD, PhD and Albert C. van Rossum, MD, PhD
Abstract
Purpose: To compare coronary computed tomographic (CT) angiography with first-pass magnetic resonance (MR) myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with chest pain and low to intermediate probability of coronary artery disease (CAD).
Materials and Methods: Local ethics committee approval and patient written informed consent were obtained. Patients with chest pain and low to intermediate pretest probability of CAD underwent both coronary CT angiography and MR myocardial perfusion imaging. Coronary CT angiographic and MR myocardial perfusion images were analyzed qualitatively by blinded observers. Obstructive CAD was defined as more than 50% diameter stenosis at coronary CT angiography. Data were expressed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated from binomial expression.
Results: In 145 (94.2%) of 154 eligible patients, both coronary CT angiography and MR myocardial perfusion imaging were performed successfully. Mean age was 57 years ± 10 (standard deviation), and 45.5% of patients were male. Mean interval between coronary CT angiography and MR myocardial perfusion imaging was 4.6 days ± 3.0; median was 5.0 days. CT coronary angiography revealed obstructive CAD in 52 (35.9%) patients and 78 (17.9%) coronary arteries. At MR myocardial perfusion imaging, myocardial ischemia was demonstrated in 33 (22.8%) patients and 59 (13.6%) vessel territories. Of patients without CAD at coronary CT angiography, 90.5% (57 of 63; 95%CI: 82.6%, 95.0%) had normal myocardial perfusion at MR myocardial perfusion imaging. Of patients with nonobstructive CAD, 83.3% (25 of 30; 95% CI: 69.5%, 91.6%) had normal myocardial perfusion at MR myocardial perfusion imaging. Myocardial ischemia was detected at MR myocardial perfusion imaging in 42.3% (22 of 52; 95% CI: 29.5%, 56%) of patients with obstructive CAD at coronary CT angiography.
Conclusion: MR myocardial perfusion imaging and coronary CT angiography have complementary roles in evaluation of patients who are suspected of having CAD. Coronary CT angiography can be used to reliably rule out CAD, but its capability to demonstrate hemodynamically significant CAD is limited. The combination of both techniques enables the clinician to evaluate morphology and functional relevance of CAD comprehensively and noninvasively.
Radiology. February 2010; 254 (2)
Feb 15, 2010
Send this review to your referrals!
We always say that education of your referral base is key to increasing your CMR volume. Send this link to your clinical cardiologists - a must read for any clinician who practices modern cardiology!
Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
Dudley J. Pennell, MD, FRCP, FESC, FACC
Hybrid Ultrasound MRI for Improved Cardiac Imaging
and Real-Time Respiration Control
David A. Feinberg,1–3* Daniel Giese,6 D. Andre Bongers,4 Sudhir Ramanna,1
Maxim Zaitsev,6 Michael Markl,6 and Matthias Gu¨ nther1,4,5
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 63:290–296 (2010)
A hybridized dual-imaging system combining real-time ultra-
sound imaging and MRI was utilized for cardiac imaging at
1.5 T and 3 T. The ultrasound scanner with a programmable
software interface was connected via computer to the MRI
scanner. Electronic noise was eliminated with electromagnetic
shielding and grounding to the screen room. At 3 T, real-time
prospective motion compensation in dynamic cine cardiac
imaging was implemented using B-mode ultrasound imaging.
The ultrasound technique avoided drawbacks such as signal
saturation or steady-state interruption of the MR navigator
gating. At 1.5 T, a low-latency real-time feedback to balanced
steady state free precision MR imaging was performed in
three normal volunteers. Results showed active tracking of
the heart during respiratory motion and improvement in time-
averaged cardiovascular images. Future studies can fully
exploit the potential of the high-frequency position informa-
tion provided by the ultrasound system for more advanced
applications in real-time organ tracking.
Key words: ultrasound; MRI; cardiac MRI; navigator echo
Feb 10, 2010
Latins versus LVH
Are Latins more prone to LVH and abnormal LV remodeling? This is the opinion according to the manuscript below:
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Jan 19;55(3):234-42.
Left ventricular mass and ventricular remodeling among Hispanic subgroups compared with non-Hispanic blacks and whites: MESA (Multi-ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis).
Rodriguez CJ, Diez-Roux AV, Moran A, Jin Z, Kronmal RA, Lima J, Homma S, Bluemke DA, Barr RG.
Department of Medicine, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)