High-resolution quantification of stress perfusion defects by cardiac magnetic resonance

Aims Quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is becoming more widely available, but it is still unclear how to integrate this information into clinical decision-making. Typically, pixel-wise perfusion maps are generated, but diagnostic and prognostic studies have summarized perfusion as just one value per patient or in 16 myocardial segments. In this study, the reporting of quantitative perfusion maps is extended from the standard 16 segments to a high-resolution bullseye. Cut-off thresholds are established for the high-resolution bullseye, and the identified perfusion defects are compared with visual assessment. Methods and results Thirty-four patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease were retrospectively analysed. Visual perfusion defects were contoured on the CMR images and pixel-wise quantitative perfusion maps were generated. Cut-off values were established on the high-resolution bullseye consisting of 1800 points and compared with the per-segment, per-coronary, and per-patient resolution thresholds. Quantitative stress perfusion was significantly lower in visually abnormal pixels, 1.11 (0.75–1.57) vs. 2.35 (1.82–2.9) mL/min/g (Mann–Whitney U test P < 0.001), with an optimal cut-off of 1.72 mL/min/g. This was lower than the segment-wise optimal threshold of 1.92 mL/min/g. The Bland–Altman analysis showed that visual assessment underestimated large perfusion defects compared with the quantification with good agreement for smaller defect burdens. A Dice overlap of 0.68 (0.57–0.78) was found. Conclusion This study introduces a high-resolution bullseye consisting of 1800 points, rather than 16, per patient for reporting quantitative stress perfusion, which may improve sensitivity. Using this representation, the threshold required to identify areas of reduced perfusion is lower than for segmental analysis

Rationale 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

Background: A number of investigative strategies exist for the diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD). Despite the widespread availability of noninvasive imaging, invasive angiography is commonly used early in the diagnostic pathway. Consequently, approximately 60% of angiograms reveal no evidence of obstructive coronary disease. Reducing unnecessary angiography has potential financial savings and avoids exposing the patient to unnecessary risk. There are no large-scale comparative effectiveness trials of the different diagnostic strategies recommended in international guidelines and none that have evaluated the safety and efficacy of cardiovascular magnetic resonance.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Trial Design: CE-MARC 2 is a prospective, multicenter, 3-arm parallel group, randomized controlled trial of patients with suspected CHD (pretest likelihood 10%-90%) requiring further investigation. A total of 1,200 patients will be randomized on a 2:2:1 basis to receive 3.0-T cardiovascular magnetic resonance–guided care, single-photon emission computed tomography–guided care (according to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association appropriate-use criteria), or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines–based management. The primary (efficacy) end point is the occurrence of unnecessary angiography as defined by a normal (&#62;0.8) invasive fractional flow reserve. Safety of each strategy will be assessed by 3-year major adverse cardiovascular event rates. Cost-effectiveness and health-related quality-of-life measures will be performed.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Conclusions: The CE-MARC 2 trial will provide comparative efficacy and safety evidence for 3 different strategies of investigating patients with suspected CHD, with the intension of reducing unnecessary invasive angiography rates. Evaluation of these management strategies has the potential to improve patient care, health-related quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness of CHD investigation