Open Access

Impact of arrhythmia on diagnostic performance of adenosine stress CMR in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease

  • Simon Greulich1,
  • Hannah Steubing1,
  • Stefan Birkmeier1,
  • Stefan Grün1,
  • Kerstin Bentz1,
  • Udo Sechtem1 and
  • Heiko Mahrholdt1Email author
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance201517:94

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-015-0195-0

Received: 7 July 2015

Accepted: 21 October 2015

Published: 5 November 2015

Abstract

Background

The diagnostic performance of adenosine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in patients with arrhythmias presenting for work-up of suspected or known CAD is largely unknown, since most CMR studies currently available exclude arrhythmic patients from analysis fearing gating problems, or other artifacts will impair image quality. The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of adenosine stress CMR for detection of significant coronary stenosis in patients with arrhythmia presenting for 1) work-up of suspected coronary artery disease (CAD), or 2) work-up of ischemia in known CAD.

Methods

Patients with arrhythmia referred for work-up of suspected CAD or work-up of ischemia in known CAD undergoing adenosine stress CMR were included if they had coronary angiography within four weeks of CMR.

Results

One hundred fifty-nine patients were included (n = 64 atrial fibrillation, n = 87 frequent ventricular extrasystoles, n = 8 frequent supraventricular extrasystoles). Of these, n = 72 had suspected CAD, and n = 87 had known CAD. Diagnostic accuracy of the adenosine stress CMR for detection of significant CAD was 73 % for the entire population (sensitivity 72 %, specificity 76 %). Diagnostic accuracy was 75 % (sensitivity 80 %, specificity 74 %) in patients with suspected CAD, and 74 % (sensitivity 71 %, specificity 79 %) in the group with known CAD. For different types of arrhythmia, diagnostic accuracy of CMR was 70 % in the atrial fibrillation group, and 79 % in patients with ventricular extrasystoles. On a per coronary territory analysis, diagnostic accuracy of CMR was 77 % for stenosis of the left and 82 % for stenosis of the right coronary artery.

Conclusion

The present data demonstrates good diagnostic performance of adenosine stress CMR for detection of significant coronary stenosis in patients with arrhythmia presenting for work-up of suspected CAD, or work-up of ischemia in known CAD. This holds true for a per patient, as well as for a per coronary territory analysis.

Keywords

CMRAdenosine stressArrhythmiaCoronary artery diseaseRisk stratification

Background

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death in the western world [1]. Current clinical practice guidelines recommend noninvasive stress testing for 1) work-up of suspected CAD [2], and 2) work-up of ischemia in known CAD [3].

Adenosine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a noninvasive stress-testing modality offering high diagnostic accuracy without need for radiation or acoustic window [47]. However, up to 90 % of patients with CAD suffer from frequent ventricular ectopic beats [8], and/or other arrhythmias [9, 10]. Unfortunately, the diagnostic performance of adenosine stress CMR in this important subgroup is widely unknown, since most CMR studies currently available exclude arrhythmic patients from analysis [6, 1113] fearing gating problems, or other artifacts will impair image quality [14].

Thus, our primary aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of adenosine stress CMR for detection of significant coronary stenosis in patients with arrhythmia presenting for 1) work-up of suspected CAD, or 2) work-up of ischemia in known CAD. In addition, we aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of adenosine stress CMR for different types of arrhythmia and for different coronary territories.

Methods

Patient population

All patients referred for 1) work-up of suspected CAD, and 2) work-up of ischemia in known CAD undergoing adenosine stress CMR at our institution between January 2011 and June 2014 were prospectively screened for study enrolment on a consecutive basis. We included all patients with arrhythmia during the stress CMR procedure (see definition of arrhythmia below), who underwent invasive coronary angiography within 4 weeks before or after the stress CMR, and who gave written informed consent to the protocol, which was approved by the local institutional review board (University of Tübingen, Germany). Exclusion criteria for the analysis were collateralized total occlusions revealed by coronary angiography, since in those cases no ischemia may be present despite occlusion, non-diagnostic images due to breathing artifacts, withdrawal of consent before completion of procedure, or other technical problems (Fig. 1). Baseline characteristics of the patient population can be viewed in Table 1.
Fig. 1

Flow chart demonstrating the study population

Table 1

Baseline characteristics

 

Entire group

Suspected CAD

Known CAD

p

(n = 159)

(n = 72)

(n = 87)

 

Age (yrs)

71.1 ± 10

69.9 ± 10.4

72.2 ± 9.6

0.17

Gender (female)

55 (35 %)

39 (54 %)

16 (18 %)

<0.05

CAD Risk Factors

 Diabetes

51 (32 %)

20 (28 %)

31 (36 %)

0.31

 Hypertension

127 (80 %)

58 (81 %)

69 (79 %)

1

 Smokinga

49 (31 %)

18 (25 %)

31 (36 %)

0.17

 Hyperlipidemia

105 (66 %)

39 (54 %)

66 (76 %)

0.004

 Family history of CVD

55 (35 %)

24 (33 %)

31 (36 %)

0.74

 Menopauseb

52 (95 %)b

37 (95 %)b

15 (94 %)b

1

 Obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2)

30 (19 %)

17 (24 %)

13 (15 %)

0.15

 Number of risk factors

2.9 ± 1.2

2.9 ± 1.3

3.0 ± 1.2

0.53

Cardiac Arrhythmia

 Heart rate at rest (beats/min.)

67 [60–78]

68 [60–80]

66 [59–78]

0.71

 Heart rate at stress (beats/min.)

85 [77–99]

85 [78–101]

85 [77–98]

0.89

 Atrial fibrillation

64 (40 %)

32 (44 %)

32 (37 %)

0.34

 VES

87 (55 %)

35 (49 %)

52 (60 %)

0.20

  Couplets

15 (9 %)

4 (6 %)

11 (13 %)

0.18

  Triplets

6 (4 %)

2 (3 %)

4 (5 %)

0.69

  Bigeminus

32 (20 %)

12 (17 %)

20 (23 %)

0.43

  Trigeminus

6 (4 %)

3 (4 %)

3 (3 %)

1

 SVES

8 (5 %)

5 (7 %)

3 (3 %)

0.47

Medication

 Statins

92 (58 %)

34 (47 %)

58 (67 %)

0.03

 Beta-blockers

100 (63 %)

38 (53 %)

62 (71 %)

0.03

 Aspirin

93 (59 %)

34 (47 %)

59 (68 %)

0.02

 ARB

105 (66 %)

41 (57 %)

64 (74 %)

0.06

 Nitrates

37 (23 %)

12 (17 %)

25 (29 %)

0.13

 Diuretics

77 (48 %)

31 (43 %)

46 (53 %)

0.33

Symptoms (multiple possible)

  Chest pain

107 (67 %)

43 (60 %)

64 (74 %)

0.43

  Dyspnea

87 (55 %)

46 (64 %)

41 (47 %)

0.04

  Palpitations

16 (10 %)

9 (13 %)

7 (8 %)

0.09

  Syncope

10 (6 %)

5 (7 %)

5 (6 %)

0.75

 Reduced LV-EF

56 (35 %)

23 (32 %)

33 (38 %)

0.61

 ECG abnormality

105 (66 %)

37 (51 %)

68 (78 %)

<0.001

 Wall motion abnormality

46 (29 %)

12 (17 %)

34 (39 %)

0.02

Values are n (%), mean ± SD or median [IQR]

suspected CAD CMR work-up of suspected CAD in patients without history of CAD, known CAD CMR work-up of ischemia in patients with prior myocardial infarction and/or revascularization procedure (PCI or CABG), CAD coronary artery disease, PCI percutaneous coronary intervention, CABG coronary artery bypass graft, CVD cardiovascular disease, BMI body mass index, VES ventricular extrasystoles, SVES supraventricular extrasystoles, ARB angiotensin receptor blocker, CMR cardiac magnetic resonance, LV-EF left ventricular ejection fraction, ECG electrocardiography

aCurrent or ever-smokers

bCalculated for females

Definitions

Relevant coronary stenosis/CAD was defined as ≥70 % narrowing of the luminal diameter in at least one projection of at least one major epicardial artery, or ≥50 % narrowing of the left main [2].

Suspected CAD: Patients without prior history of CAD.

Known CAD: Patients with prior myocardial infarction and/or revascularization procedure(s) such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).

CAD-type late gadolinium enhancement (LGE): Subendocardial or transmural LGE consistent with prior myocardial infarction [15].

Arrhythmia was defined as atrial fibrillation, and/or frequent ectopic beats >20/min (of ventricular or supraventricular origin) [13]. All arrhythmias were detected by ECG and/or Holter ECG, and had to be present during both adenosine stress and rest perfusion.

Analysis per coronary territory was made on a 17 segment model basis according to AHA guidelines as previously described [16]. Left coronary artery (LCA) included the following coronary arteries: left main (LM), left anterior descending (LAD) and left circumflex artery (LCX).

CMR protocol

Electrocardiogram (ECG) gated CMR imaging was performed in breath-hold using a 1.5 T Magnetom Aera (Siemens-Healthcare, Germany) in line with recommendations of the Society of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance, and the European Society of Cardiology Working Group EuroCMR, respectively [17].

Details of the CMR protocol have been reported previously [18]. In brief, steady-state free-precession cine images for assessment of LV function were acquired in multiple short-axis (every 10 mm throughout the LV) and three long-axis views. Adenosine (140 μg · kg−1 · min−1) was infused under continuous electrocardiography and blood pressure monitoring for approximately 3 min. At 2.5 min into the infusion, gadolinium (0.07 mmol/kg Gadodiamide or Gadopentetate-Dimeglumine) first-pass imaging for assessment of stress perfusion was performed in three short axis views (basal, mid, apical, matched to cine locations excluding most basal and apical slices) using a saturation-recovery, single-shot, gradient-echo sequence (90° pre-pulse before each slice; echo time, 1.1 ms; delay time, 85–100 ms; temporal resolution, 110–125 ms; voxel size, 3.0 × 1.8 × 8.0 mm). In order to speed up imaging parallel imaging with 2-fold acceleration was employed. Repeat first-pass images without adenosine 15 min later were performed for assessment of rest perfusion. Five minutes after rest perfusion (additional 0.07 mmol/kg Gadodiamide or Gadopentetate-Dimeglumine), late gadolinium enhancement was performed using a segmented inversion-recovery technique in the identical views as cine-CMR. The image acquisition protocol was completed in about 45 min.

CMR analysis

Scans were analyzed by consensus of two experienced observers (S.G., H.M.), who were blinded to patient identity, clinical information, and the angiography results. A perfusion defect was defined as a regional dark area, that 1) persisted for >2 beats while other regions enhanced during the first-pass of contrast through the myocardium, and 2) involved the subendocardium [19, 20]. Dark rim artifact was not regarded as perfusion deficit using previously described criteria [21].

Cine and contrast images were evaluated as described elsewhere [22]. In brief, endocardial and epicardial borders were outlined on the short axis cine images. Volumes and ejection fraction were derived by summation of epicardial and endocardial contours.

In patients referred for work-up of suspected CAD the Duke algorithm was used for diagnosis of CAD [18]: Patients were diagnosed having relevant stenosis/CAD if they had 1) evidence of LGE consistent with a prior myocardial infarction, or 2) no evidence of prior myocardial infarction, but perfusion defects present with adenosine that were absent or reduced at rest (reversible perfusion defect). If patients showed a matched perfusion defect under stress and rest perfusion, patients were considered having no relevant stenosis/CAD [18].

In patients referred for work-up of ischemia in known CAD two different algorithms were used depending on the presence of ischemic scar: 1) In the absence of ischemic scar on LGE images relevant stenosis/ischemia was defined as the presence of a reversible perfusion defect as described above [18]. 2) In the presence of ischemic scar on LGE images ischemia was defined as a mismatch between the first-pass stress perfusion defect and enhancement seen on LGE sequences, whereas a match between the first-pass stress perfusion defect and LGE was considered as chronic myocardial infarction with no additional reversible ischemia [23].

Coronary angiography and analysis by coronary artery territory

Coronary angiography was performed by standard techniques [24] and analyzed masked to identity, clinical information, and CMR results. Significant CAD was defined as ≥70 % narrowing of the luminal diameter in at least one projection of at least one major epicardial artery, or ≥50 % narrowing of the left main [2]. Native vessels with a diameter smaller than 2 mm were excluded from the analysis. Two experienced interventional cardiologists (S.G, H.M.) blinded to the results of the CMR imaging visually evaluated the coronary angiograms by consensus.

Statistical analysis

Absolute numbers and percentages were computed to describe the patient population. All continuous variables were tested for normality. Normally distributed continuous variables were expressed as means (with standard deviation) and skewed variables were presented as medians (with quartiles). Comparisons between groups were made using the Mann-Whitney U test or the Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Statistical tests were two-tailed; p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. Positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Patient characteristics

In total 159 patients were included in the final analysis (Fig. 1). Table 1 summarizes the patient characteristics. At inclusion, patients were 71 ± 10 years of age and predominantly male (65 %). Atrial fibrillation was present in 64 patients (40 %), 87 patients (55 %) suffered from frequent ventricular extrasystoles (VES), and 8 patients (5 %) showed frequent supraventricular extrasystoles (SVES). The majority (67 %) had chest pain as primary reason to suspect significant CAD, followed by dyspnea (55 %), and palpitations (10 %).

Seventy-two patients were referred for work-up of suspected CAD, and 87 patients were referred for work-up of ischemia in known CAD. The group with known CAD was older (72.2 ± 9.6) with fewer females (18 %) than the group with suspected CAD (age 69.9 ± 10.4, p = 0.17; 54 % females, p < 0.05). Patients presenting with known CAD had a higher prevalence of hyperlipidemia (p = 0.004), and wall motion abnormalities (p = 0.02) than patients with suspected CAD. Of note, the prevalence of the different types of arrhythmia was similar between the two groups.

General CMR findings

General CMR results are displayed in Table 2. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LV-EF) in the study population was mildly impaired (median 54 %) with normal mean cardiac volumes. Overall, CMR perfusion revealed LCA ischemia in 31 %, and RCA ischemia in 23 % of patients. CAD-type LGE was present in 47 % of patients.
Table 2

CMR results

Parameter

Entire group

Suspected CAD

Known CAD

p

 

(n = 159)

(n = 72)

(n = 87)

 

LV-EF (%)

54 [39–66]

61 [45–67]

50 [34–64]

0.04

LV-EDV (ml)

124 [101–168]

116 [91–145]

133 [106–181]

0.01

LV-ESV (ml)

54 [32–98]

49 [28–69]

68 [40–109]

0.007

LA (cm2)

26 [21–35]

27 [22–38]

26 [21–34]

0.43

IVS (mm)

12 [10–13]

11 [10–13]

12 [10–14]

0.58

Ischemia LCA

49 (31 %)

13 (18 %)

36 (41 %)

0.001

Ischemia RCA

36 (23 %)

7 (10 %)

29 (33 %)

<0.001

CAD-type LGE

74 (47 %)

15 (21 %)

59 (68 %)

<0.001

Values are median [IQR], or n (%)

CAD coronary artery disease, suspected CAD CMR work-up of suspected CAD in patients without history of CAD, known CAD CMR work-up of ischemia in patients with prior myocardial infarction and/or revascularization procedure (PCI or CABG), LV left ventricular, EF ejection fraction, EDV end-diastolic volume, ESV end-systolic volume, LA left atrium, IVS interventricular septum, LCA LM + LAD + LCX, LCA left coronary artery, LM left main, LAD left anterior descending, LCX left circumflex artery, LGE late gadolinium enhancement

Among patients with known CAD, LV-EF was significantly lower compared to the suspected CAD group, p = 0.04. Conversely, left ventricular end-diastolic volumes (LV-EDV) and left ventricular end-systolic volumes (LV-ESV) were significantly larger in the known CAD group (LV-EDV p = 0.01, LV-ESV p = 0.007 respectively). In addition, patients with known CAD were diagnosed with relevant stenosis/ischemia more frequently than patients with suspected CAD (p = 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). CAD-type LGE was also more common in the known CAD group (68 vs. 21 %, p < 0.001).

Diagnostic performance of CMR

Entire population

Overall diagnostic accuracy of adenosine stress CMR for the detection of ≥70 % stenosis on coronary angiography was 73 % (sensitivity 72 %, specificity 76 %) for patients with suspected or known CAD (Table 3). On a per coronary territory basis the diagnostic accuracy of CMR was 77 % for LCA stenosis (sensitivity 78 %, specificity 77 %) and 82 % for detection of RCA stenosis (sensitivity 63 %, specificity 88 %).
Table 3

Diagnostic performance of CMR stress testing for the detection of ≥70 % stenosis on coronary angiography in all patients (n = 159)

 

Per patient

LCAa

RCA

All Types of Arrhythmiab

 Sensitivity

72 % (49/68)

78 % (53/68)

63 % (24/38)

 Specificity

76 % (69/91)

77 % (70/91)

88 % (107/121)

 Diagnostic Accuracy

73 % (118/159)

77 % (123/159)

82 % (131/159)

 LR+

3.00

3.39

5.25

 LR-

0.37

0.29

0.42

AFib Only

 Sensitivity

71 % (25/35)

81 % (22/27)

63 % (10/16)

 Specificity

69 % (20/29)

76 % (28/37)

88 % (42/48)

 Diagnostic Accuracy

70 % (45/64)

78 % (50/64)

81 % (52/64)

 LR+

2.29

3.38

5.25

 LR-

0.42

0.25

0.42

VES Only

 Sensitivity

74 % (23/31)

75 % (30/40)

65 % (13/20)

 Specificity

82 % (46/56)

81 % (38/47)

90 % (61/67)

 Diagnostic Accuracy

79 % (69/87)

78 % (68/87)

85 % (74/87)

 LR+

4.11

3.95

6.05

 LR-

0.32

0.31

0.39

Values are % (n)

AFib atrial fibrillation, VES ventricular extrasystoles, SVES supraventricular extrasystoles, LR+ positive likelihood ratio, LR- negative likelihood ratio

aLCA = LM + LAD + LCX, abbreviations see Table 2

bAll types of arrhythmia: n = 64 AFib + n = 87 VES + n = 8 SVES

Looking at patients presenting with atrial fibrillation (n = 64) revealed a diagnostic accuracy of 70 % for CMR (sensitivity 71 %, specificity 69 %), which is lower than in the 87 patients presenting with VES (diagnostic accuracy 79 %, sensitivity 74 %, specificity 82 %). On a per coronary territory basis, the diagnostic accuracy for detection of LCA and RCA stenosis was good in patients with atrial fibrillation (78 %, 81 % respectively), and in patients with VES (78 %, 85 % respectively).

Considering the low number of patients with SVES (n = 8), these patients were included in the entire population analysis. Five of those patients were in the suspected CAD group, and three out of five were classified correctly as negative by CMR. The other three patients had known CAD, two of them had coronary stenosis on coronary angiography, one of them was correctly identified by CMR.

Patients with suspected CAD

Diagnostic accuracy of CMR stress testing for the detection of ≥70 % stenosis in patients with suspected CAD was 75 % (sensitivity 80 %, specificity 74 %), positive likelihood ratio (LR) 3.08, negative LR 0.27 (Table 4). The prevalence of significant coronary stenosis on coronary angiography was 14 % (10 out of 72 patients with suspected CAD).
Table 4

Diagnostic performance of CMR stress testing for the detection of ≥70 % stenosis on coronary angiography in patients with suspected CAD by use of the Duke algorithma

 

Per patient

LCAb

RCA

Sensitivity

80 % (8/10)

80 % (8/10)

100 % (1/1)

Specificity

74 % (46/62)

76 % (47/62)

89 % (63/71)

Diagnostic Accuracy

75 % (54/72)

76 % (55/72)

89 % (64/72)

LR+

3.08

3.33

8.33

LR-

0.27

0.26

0

Values are % (n)

suspected CAD CMR work-up of suspected CAD in patients without history of CAD

aPresence of CAD-type LGE or stress induced perfusion defect

bLCA = LM + LAD + LCX; n = 32 AFib + n = 35 VES + n = 5 SVES; other abbreviations see Table 3

CMR identified 80 % of the patients with suspected CAD and stenosis of the LCA correctly, yielding to a diagnostic accuracy of 76 % (specificity 76 %), positive LR 3.33 and negative LR 0.26. For the RCA, CMR revealed a diagnostic accuracy of 89 %, with a sensitivity of 100 %, and a specificity of 89 %, positive LR 8.33, negative LR 0. Figure 2 demonstrates two typical patients with suspected CAD and different types of arrhythmia.
Fig. 2

Patients with suspected CAD, but different types of arrhythmia: Top row: 72-year old male with atrial fibrillation presenting for work-up of suspected CAD. CMR revealed no LGE, but a reversible perfusion defect at the inferoseptal wall (white arrows), highly suggestive of significant RCA stenosis. Coronary angiography revealed high-grade RCA stenosis (black arrow). Bottom row: 69-year old female with frequent VES and atypical chest pain presenting for work-up of suspected CAD. LGE was negative, stress perfusion revealed no perfusion defect, resulting in the CMR diagnosis “no CAD”. Coronary angiography confirmed unobstructed coronary arteries

Patients with known CAD

The diagnostic accuracy of CMR stress for detection of ≥70 % stenosis in patients with known CAD was 74 % (sensitivity 71 %, specificity 79 %), positive LR 3.38, negative LR 0.37, see Table 5. The prevalence of significant coronary stenosis on coronary angiography was 67 % (58 out of 87 patients with known CAD).
Table 5

Diagnostic performance of CMR stress testing for the detection of ≥70 % stenosis on coronary angiography in patients with known CAD

 

Per patient

LCAa

RCA

Sensitivity

71 % (41/58)

78 % (45/58)

62 % (23/37)

Specificity

79 % (23/29)

79 % (23/29)

88 % (44/50)

Diagnostic Accuracy

74 % (64/87)

78 % (68/87)

77 % (67/87)

LR+

3.38

3.71

5.17

LR-

0.37

0.28

0.43

Values are % (n)

known CAD CMR work-up of ischemia in patients with prior myocardial infarction and/or revascularization procedure (PCI or CABG)

aLCA = LM + LAD + LCX, n = 32 AFib + n = 52 VES + n = 3 SVES, abbreviations see Table 3

CMR identified 78 % of patients with known CAD and stenosis ≥70 % in the LCA correctly, yielding a diagnostic accuracy of 78 % and a specificity of 79 %, positive LR 3.71, and negative LR 0.28. For the RCA, CMR revealed a diagnostic accuracy of 77 %, with a sensitivity of 62 %, and a specificity of 88 %, positive LR 5.17, negative LR 0.43. Typical CMR results are displayed in Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Patients with known CAD. Top row: 71-year old female with atrial fibrillation and known CAD (myocardial infarction two years ago) presented for work-up of new ischemia. LGE revealed a transmural infarction of the inferior wall. Stress perfusion demonstrated a reversible perfusion defect of the lateral wall (white arrows), highly suggestive of significant LCX stenosis. This could be confirmed by coronary angiography: LCX had a high-grade proximal stenosis (white arrow), RCA showed coronary plaques, but no significant stenosis. Bottom row: 73-year old male with typical angina, frequent VES, and known CAD (prior stenosis of the LAD, in which PCI was performed 12 years ago). LGE revealed no scar, but stress perfusion demonstrated a large perfusion defect in the lateral wall, suggestive of LCX stenosis. On coronary angiography, severe LCX stenosis could be confirmed

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating the diagnostic performance of adenosine stress CMR for detection of significant coronary stenosis in patients with different types of arrhythmia. Our data indicate that adenosine stress CMR performs well for detection of relevant coronary stenosis in patients with suspected CAD (diagnostic accuracy 75 %), and also in patients with known CAD (diagnostic accuracy 74 %), despite the presence of various arrhythmias during the CMR procedure. These results underscore the increasing value of adenosine stress CMR in the real world clinical routine.

Patient characteristics

The average patient age and gender distribution are similar to previous stress CMR studies in which patients with arrhythmia where usually excluded from analysis [5]. This also holds true for the clinical symptoms leading to CMR referral in the present population [25]. Types of arrhythmia found in our patients include atrial fibrillation, frequent VES and frequent SVES, which are known to be associated with CAD [810]. As to expect, the subgroup with known CAD was older (72.2 ± 9.6 years), with fewer females (18 %) and higher prevalence of hyperlipidemia than the group with suspected CAD (69.9 ± 10.4 years, p = 0.17; 54 % females, p < 0.05).

General CMR findings

Median LV-EF of all patients was 54 %, which is comparable to other studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of adenosine stress CMR in a mixed patient population comprising patients with suspected and known CAD [23]. Patients with known CAD had a lower LV-EF and larger end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, most likely explained by the higher prevalence of ischemic scar represented by CAD-type LGE (68 vs. 21 % in the suspected CAD group), resulting in reduced LV-EF and ventricular remodeling. Ischemia was also more common in patients with known CAD than in the group with suspected CAD, respectively.

Diagnostic performance of CMR

Entire population

Looking at the entire population, the diagnostic accuracy of stress CMR for the detection of ≥70 % stenosis on coronary angiography was 73 % (sensitivity 72 %, specificity 76 %) for all 159 patients with suspected or known CAD, and different types of arrhythmia. This is lower than reported in a large meta-analysis [5] calculating a sensitivity of 90 % and a specificity of 81 %. However, many studies of this meta-analysis excluded patients with arrhythmia to improve image quality, which most likely explains the difference to our data based on patients presenting with arrhythmia only.

Analyzing our entire population data per coronary territory demonstrate CMR to yield a diagnostic accuracy of 77 % for the LCA (sensitivity 78 %, specificity 77 %), and of 82 % for the RCA (sensitivity 63 %, specificity 88 %). This is also lower than in the meta-analysis mentioned above, demonstrating sensitivities of 83, 76 and 78 % and specificities of 83, 87, and 87 % for LAD, LCX and RCA, respectively. However, patients with arrhythmias were excluded in most studies of this meta-analysis [5].

Comparing patients with atrial fibrillation to patients with VES (Table 3) reveals a good diagnostic accuracy for LCA and RCA (78 and 81 %) in the atrial fibrillation group, and in patients with VES (78 and 85 %). However, the sensitivities for detecting relevant RCA stenosis were lower in both groups when compared to the LCA (atrial fibrillation 63 vs. 81 %, VES 65 vs. 75 %). This is in accordance with other studies [5], reporting a higher sensitivity for detection of stenosis in the LAD when compared to LCX and RCA, most likely due to the surface radiofrequency coil receiving lower signal intensities from the inferior and lateral segments [5].

Patients with suspected CAD

Evaluating the subgroup presenting for work-up of suspected CAD the diagnostic accuracy was 75 % (sensitivity 80 %, specificity 74 %). This is less than reported by Klem et al. [18], who first described the Duke algorithm for work-up of suspected CAD by combining LGE and perfusion sequences in 92 patients. However, in contrast to the present data, the Klem population only included one patient with atrial fibrillation and two patients with VES.

Among our 72 patients with suspected CAD the prevalence of significant coronary stenosis was low (14 %), underscoring the need of noninvasive imaging in patients with arrhythmia before undergoing coronary angiography. One reason for the low prevalence of CAD might be that patients with arrhythmia are at an “increased risk” to be referred to coronary angiography due to previous inconclusive exercise tests, or the presence of arrhythmia itself in combination with risk factors and complaints. Interestingly, this finding nicely matches the results of Smit et al. who performed a myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) analysis in patients with atrial fibrillation and suspected CAD. The prevalence of CAD (≥70 % stenosis) in this group was 13 % [26].

In a per coronary territory analysis, the diagnostic accuracy for the LCA was 76 % (sensitivity 80 %, specificity 76 %). For the RCA our data revealed a diagnostic accuracy of 89 % (sensitivity 100 %, specificity 89 %), completely in line with the results of Klem et al. [18]. However, it must be noted that only one patient with suspected CAD had ≥70 % RCA stenosis.

Patients with known CAD

Focusing on the subgroup with known CAD the diagnostic accuracy of CMR stress testing for the detection of ≥70 % stenosis was 74 % (sensitivity 71 %, specificity 79 %). A study by Klein et al. investigated the diagnostic performance of adenosine perfusion CMR in 78 patients [27] reporting a diagnostic accuracy of 82 % for detection of ≥50 % stenosis (sensitivity 77 %, specificity 90 %), excluding patients with atrial fibrillation.

Per coronary territory the diagnostic accuracy for the LCA was 78 and 77 % for the RCA, which is also quite in line with other reports [23, 27]. Figure 4 demonstrates the feasibility of adenosine stress CMR in a patient presenting with frequent VES (bigeminus).
Fig. 4

Two CMR exams with two different rhythms in one and the same patient. 77-year old male undergoing stress CMR two times within four weeks due to LAD in-stent restenosis early after intervention. One scan was performed during bigeminus (upper row), whereas the second scan was performed in sinus rhythm (bottom row). Note that the stress perfusion defect in the LAD territory (left column) could be detected in sinus rhythm, as well as during bigeminus

Limitations

Limitations of the present study are, that adenosine stress CMR was compared with invasive coronary angiography, which is not the perfect gold standard for comparison as functional significance of coronary obstruction and luminal diameter stenosis are known to show only moderate correlation. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that the algorithm used for CMR analysis of patients with suspected CAD is intended to detect significant obstruction of the epicardial coronaries compared to invasive coronary angiography (>70 % stenosis). Thus, perfusion defects that were considered as artifacts according to the algorithm used in this analysis may be a surrogate parameter for microvascular dysfunction. Hence, it might be possible that these patients who suffer partly from distinct anginal symptoms were classified as healthy by CMR, which could be confirmed by coronary angiography. Another limitation is the selection bias introduced by excluding patients with collateralized occlusions and CMR studies with severe breathing artifacts. Despite introducing a bias, we believe that the exclusion of collateralized occlusions is favorable in order to keep the data consistent, since in those cases no ischemia may be present despite occlusion of the vessel. Furthermore, removal of CMR data sets due to severe breathing artifacts seems reasonable since aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of arrhythmia (and not of severe breathing artifacts) on the diagnostic accuracy of an adenosine stress CMR test. Moreover, it should be stated that only a few patients (4 out of 163 patients, =0.02 %) were excluded due to severe breathing artifacts.

Clinical implications

On the basis of the data presented it may be safe to assume that the diagnostic performance of adenosine stress CMR for detection of significant coronary stenosis is somewhat impaired in patients presenting with arrhythmias compared to patients without arrhythmias (75 vs. 88 % for suspected CAD [18] and 74 vs. 82 % in known CAD [27]), but still sufficient for clinical routine use. In fact, with a sensitivity of 72 %, and specificity of 76 % (overall diagnostic accuracy of 73 %) adenosine stress CMR in patients with arrhythmias performs well in comparison to other stress testing modalities (SPECT: sensitivity 73–92 %, specificity 63–87; stress echocardiography: sensitivity 80–85 %, specificity 80–88 %; exercise ECG: sensitivity 45–50 %, specificity 85–90 %) [2], underscoring the value of adenosine stress CMR in a real world clinical setting.

Unfortunately, the current study was not designed to evaluate the prognostic value of stress CMR in patients with arrhythmias. However, given the encouraging results with regard to the diagnostic performance in those patients, and the results of the EuroCMR Registry demonstrating a good prognostic value of adenosine stress CMR in patients presenting for work-up of suspected CAD [28], including those with arrhythmias, it is likely that adenosine stress CMR also has a good prognostic value in arrhythmic patients. Nevertheless, additional data is needed to underscore this important point.

Conclusions

The present data demonstrates a good diagnostic performance of adenosine stress CMR for detection of significant coronary stenosis in patients with arrhythmia presenting for 1) work-up of suspected CAD, or 2) work-up of ischemia in known CAD. This holds true in the entire population for a per patient, as well as a per coronary territory analysis.

Abbreviations

AFib: 

Atrial fibrillation

CABG: 

Coronary artery bypass graft

CAD: 

Coronary artery disease

CMR: 

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance

ECG: 

Electrocardiogram

IQR: 

Interquartile range

LA: 

Left atrial

LCA: 

Left coronary artery

LCX: 

Left circumflex artery

LGE: 

Late gadolinium enhancement

LR: 

Likelihood ratio

LV: 

Left ventricle

LV-EDV: 

Left ventricular end-diastolic volume

LV-ESV: 

Left ventricular end-systolic volume

LV-EF: 

Left ventricular ejection fraction

PCI: 

Percutaneous coronary intervention

RCA: 

Right coronary artery

SPECT: 

Single photon emission computed tomography

SVES: 

Supraventricular extrasystoles

VES: 

Ventricular extrasystoles

Declarations

Funding sources

This work was funded in part by the Robert Bosch Foundation 1) clinical research grant for CMR risk stratification in HCM and 2) clinical research grant for inflammatory heart disease KKF-11-18, KKF-13-2.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Cardiology, Robert Bosch Medical Center

References

  1. Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, Brown TM, Carnethon M, Dai S, De Simone G, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;121:e46–e215.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, Collet JP, Cremer J, Falk V, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2541–619.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Nandalur KR, Dwamena BA, Choudhri AF, Nandalur MR, Carlos RC. Diagnostic performance of stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1343–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Hamon M, Fau G, Nee G, Ehtisham J, Morello R, Hamon M. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance for detection of coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson : Off J Soc Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 2010;12:29.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N, Al-Saadi N, Sauer E, Huettle K, et al. MR-IMPACT II: Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary artery disease Trial: perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs. single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicentre, multivendor trial. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:775–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Younger JF, Brown JM, Nixon J, Everett CC, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet. 2012;379:453–60.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bigger Jr JT, Dresdale FJ, Heissenbuttel RH, Weld FM, Wit AL. Ventricular arrhythmias in ischemic heart disease: mechanism, prevalence, significance, and management. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1977;19:255–300.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. AFFIRM Investigator, Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management. Baseline characteristics of patients with atrial fibrillation: the AFFIRM Study. Am Heart J. 2002;143:991–1001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Hohnloser SH, Crijns HJ, van Eickels M, Gaudin C, Page RL, Torp-Pedersen C, et al. Effect of dronedarone on cardiovascular events in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:668–78.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Giang TH, Nanz D, Coulden R, Friedrich M, Graves M, Al-Saadi N, et al. Detection of coronary artery disease by magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging with various contrast medium doses: first European multi-centre experience. Eur Heart J. 2004;25:1657–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Merkle N, Wohrle J, Grebe O, Nusser T, Kunze M, Kestler HA, et al. Assessment of myocardial perfusion for detection of coronary artery stenoses by steady-state, free-precession magnetic resonance first-pass imaging. Heart. 2007;93:1381–5.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, van Rossum AC, Lombardi M, Al-Saadi N, Ahlstrom H, et al. MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:480–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kohli P, Waters DD. Looking for coronary disease in patients with atrial fibrillation. Can J Cardiol. 2014;30:861–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Mahrholdt H, Wagner A, Judd RM, Sechtem U, Kim RJ. Delayed enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of non-ischaemic cardiomyopathies. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:1461–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, Jacobs AK, Kaul S, American Heart Association Writing Group on Myocardial Segmentation and Registration for Cardiac Imaging, et al. Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the cardiac imaging committee of the council on clinical cardiology of the american heart association. Circulation. 2002;105(4):539–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kramer CM, Barkhausen J, Flamm SD, Kim RJ, Nagel E. Standardized cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) protocols, society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance: board of trustees task force on standardized protocols. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson: Off J Soc Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 2008;10:35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Klem I, Heitner JF, Shah DJ, Cawley P, Behar V, Weinsaft J, et al. Improved detection of coronary artery disease by stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance with the use of delayed enhancement infarction imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1630–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Greulich S, Bruder O, Parker M, Schumm J, Grün S, Schneider S, et al. Comparison of exercise electrocardiography and stress perfusion CMR for the detection of coronary artery disease in women. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson : Off J Soc Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 2012;14:36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Klem I, Greulich S, Heitner JF, Kim H, Vogelsberg H, Kispert EM, et al. Value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance stress perfusion testing for the detection of coronary artery disease in women. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1:436–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Di Bella EV, Parker DL, Sinusas AJ. On the dark rim artifact in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI myocardial perfusion studies. Magn Reson Med: Off J Soc Magnetic Resonance Med Soc Magnetic Resonance Med. 2005;54:1295–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Mahrholdt H, Goedecke C, Wagner A, Meinhardt G, Athanasiadis A, Vogelsberg H, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of human myocarditis: a comparison to histology and molecular pathology. Circulation. 2004;109:1250–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Bernhardt P, Spiess J, Levenson B, Pilz G, Höfling B, Hombach V, et al. Combined assessment of myocardial perfusion and late gadolinium enhancement in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass grafts: a multicenter study of an integrated cardiovascular magnetic resonance protocol. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:1292–300.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM, Carabello B, Dehmer GJ, Eagle KA, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography: executive summary and recommendations. A report of the american college of cardiology/american heart association task force on practice guidelines (committee on coronary angiography) developed in collaboration with the society for cardiac angiography and interventions. Circulation. 1999;99:2345–57.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Bingham SE, Hachamovitch R. Incremental prognostic significance of combined cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, adenosine stress perfusion, delayed enhancement, and left ventricular function over preimaging information for the prediction of adverse events. Circulation. 2011;123:1509–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Smit MD, Tio RA, Slart RH, Zijlstra F, Van Gelder IC. Myocardial perfusion imaging does not adequately assess the risk of coronary artery disease in patients with atrial fibrillation. Europace. 2010;12:643–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Klein C, Nagel E, Gebker R, Kelle S, Schnackenburg B, Graf K, et al. Magnetic resonance adenosine perfusion imaging in patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:437–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Bruder O, Wagner A, Lombardi M, Schwitter J, Pilz G, Nothnagel D, et al. European Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (EuroCMR) registry--multi national results from 57 centers in 15 countries. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15:9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Greulich et al. 2015

Advertisement