Comparison between quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging and [O-15]H2O positron emission tomography

Everaars, H.; Diemen, P.A. van; Bom, M.J.; Schumacher, S.P.; Winter, R.W. de; Ven, P.M. van de; Raijmakers, P.G.; Lammertsma, A.A.; Hofman, M.B.M.; Geest, R.J. van der; Gotte, M.J.; Rossum, A.C. van; Nijveldt, R.; Danad, I.; Driessen, R.S.; Knaapen, P.

doi:doi:10.1007/s00259-019-04641-9

Purpose To compare cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with [O-15]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) for quantification of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods Fifty-nine patients with stable CAD underwent CMR and [O-15]H2O PET. The CMR imaging protocol included late gadolinium enhancement to rule out presence of scar tissue and perfusion imaging using a dual sequence, single bolus technique. Absolute MBF was determined for the three main vascular territories at rest and during vasodilator stress. Results CMR measurements of regional stress MBF and MFR showed only moderate correlation to those obtained using PET (r = 0.39; P < 0.001 for stress MBF and r = 0.36; P < 0.001 for MFR). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a significant bias of 0.2 +/- 1.0 mL/min/g for stress MBF and - 0.5 +/- 1.2 for MFR. CMR-derived stress MBF and MFR demonstrated area under the curves of respectively 0.72 (95%...Show morePurpose To compare cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with [O-15]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) for quantification of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods Fifty-nine patients with stable CAD underwent CMR and [O-15]H2O PET. The CMR imaging protocol included late gadolinium enhancement to rule out presence of scar tissue and perfusion imaging using a dual sequence, single bolus technique. Absolute MBF was determined for the three main vascular territories at rest and during vasodilator stress. Results CMR measurements of regional stress MBF and MFR showed only moderate correlation to those obtained using PET (r = 0.39; P < 0.001 for stress MBF and r = 0.36; P < 0.001 for MFR). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a significant bias of 0.2 +/- 1.0 mL/min/g for stress MBF and - 0.5 +/- 1.2 for MFR. CMR-derived stress MBF and MFR demonstrated area under the curves of respectively 0.72 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.79) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.83) and had optimal cutoff values of 2.35 mL/min/g and 2.25 for detecting abnormal myocardial perfusion, defined as [O-15]H2O PET-derived stress MBF <= 2.3 mL/min/g and MFR <= 2.5. Using these cutoff values, CMR and PET were concordant in 137 (77%) vascular territories for stress MBF and 135 (80%) vascular territories for MFR. Conclusion CMR measurements of stress MBF and MFR showed modest agreement to those obtained with [O-15]H2O PET. Nevertheless, stress MBF and MFR were concordant between CMR and [O-15]H2O PET in 77% and 80% of vascular territories, respectively.Show less

Leiden University Scholarly Publications

View statistics

Documents

In Collections

Comparison between quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging and [O-15]H2O positron emission tomography