Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Poster presentation
  • Open Access

Adenosine-perfusion at 1.5 Tesla is superior to 3 Tesla for the detection of coronary artery disease

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance201315 (Suppl 1) :P187

https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429X-15-S1-P187

  • Published:

Keywords

  • Coronary Artery Disease
  • Cardiac Magnetic Resonance
  • Late Gadolinium Enhancement
  • Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Image
  • Significant Coronary Artery Disease

Background

To compare a compiled clinical routine cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) protocol performed at both 1.5-T and 3.0-T in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing coronary x-ray angiography.

CMR including adenosine perfusion and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) at 1.5-T has been established for noninvasive detection of relevant CAD. However, little is known about the potential advantages of 3.0-T to detect CAD.

Methods

Fifty-two evaluable patients (62.3 ± 10.2 years) were included into the study. All patients were scanned at both 1.5-T and 3.0-T including adenosine stress and rest perfusion, and LGE imaging. CMR images were analyzed by two blinded readers in consensus. A significant CAD was diagnosed by quantitative coronary analysis.

Results

Diagnostic accuracy of the combined analysis of perfusion and LGE imaging yielded better values at 1.5-T and 3.0-T than the analysis of perfusion images alone. Specificity and sensitivity at 3.0-T was superior to 1.5-T in detecting coronary stenoses ≥50% (90% vs.75% and 84.4% vs.75%) and ≥70% (88% vs. 80% and 96.3% vs. 88.9%).
Figure 1
Figure 1

Example of an adenosine perfusion CMR examination at 1.5-T and 3.0-T revealing a lateral wall perfusion deficit (arrows) consistent with an occlusion of the LCX (circle) as seen on coronary angiogram.

Figure 2
Figure 2

Bar diagram comparing both analysis algorithms (perfusion vs. perfusion + LGE analysis) and both field strengths (1.5 vs. 3 T) for diagnostic accuracy regarding a threshold of ≥50% coronary artery stenosis.

Figure 3
Figure 3

Bar diagram comparing both analysis algorithms (perfusion vs. perfusion + LGE analysis) and both field strengths (1.5 vs. 3 T) for diagnostic accuracy regarding a threshold of ≥70% coronary artery stenosis

Conclusions

This study showed that CMR at 3.0-T in a routine clinical setting is superior to 1.5-T in detection of significant CAD. 3.0-T might become the preferred CMR field strength for evaluation of CAD in clinical practice.

Funding

This study was partly funded by a research grant of Guerbet, France.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Internal Medicine II, Cardiology, Ulm, Germany

Copyright

© Walcher et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement