These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Diagnostic value of global myocardial perfusion reserve assessment based on coronary sinus flow measurements using cardiovascular magnetic resonance in addition to myocardial stress perfusion imaging.
    Author: Shomanova Z, Florian A, Bietenbeck M, Waltenberger J, Sechtem U, Yilmaz A.
    Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging; 2017 May 01; 18(8):851-859. PubMed ID: 28369259.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: Myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) is defined as the maximal possible increase in myocardial blood flow (MBF) above baseline conditions. Global MBF can be measured non-invasively by means of coronary sinus flow velocity encoded cine (VENC) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). We aimed to explore the relationship between global MBF/MPR and the extent and severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients referred for CAD work-up by adenosine-stress CMR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients with suspected obstructive CAD underwent both adenosine-stress CMR and invasive coronary angiography. In addition to standard cine- and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE)-imaging, first-pass myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and coronary sinus flow measurements (VENC) were performed at rest and during peak stress (after 140 µg/kg/min adenosine), respectively. Nineteen young patients with a very low CAD pre-test probability and normal adenosine-stress CMR formed the control group. Fifty-nine percent (n = 34) of the study group showed segmental, adenosine-induced myocardial perfusion defects compared to none of the control group (P < 0.001). Global MPR was lower in the study group compared to the control group: 2.3 (1.5-3.1) vs. 3.1 (2.0-4.3), P = 0.016. The SYNTAX score was higher in the study group patients with an impaired MPR (<2) compared to those with a preserved MPR (3.0 vs. 16.0, P = 0.01)-mainly due to higher prevalence of proximal epicardial stenoses (60% vs. 27%, P = 0.02) and multi-vessel disease (56% vs. 24%, P = 0.017). The diagnostic yield of stress CMR for the diagnosis of CAD (>50% stenosis) increased from 65to 88% when global MPR assessment was considered in addition to MPI (P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Global MBF and MPR values correlate with the anatomical extent and complexity of CAD and increase the diagnostic yield of non-invasive stress CMR in the work-up of CAD. CMR-based MBF and MPR measurements may play a future role in the evaluation of the total ischaemic burden-particularly in patients with multi-vessel disease.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]