Hussain Shazia T, Chiribiri Amedeo, Morton Geraint, Bettencourt Nuno, Schuster Andreas, Paul Matthias, Perera Divaka, Nagel Eike
Papworth Hospital NHS trust, Papworth Everard, Papworth Everard, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Cardiology Department, Papworth Hospital, Papworth Everard, CB23 3RE, UK.
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016 Jul 19;18(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s12968-016-0263-0.
Perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) are emerging as the most accurate tools for the assessment of myocardial ischemia noninvasively or in the catheter laboratory. However, there is limited data comparing CMR and FFR in patients with multi-vessel disease. This study aims to evaluate the correlation between myocardial ischemia detected by CMR with FFR in patients with multivessel coronary disease at angiography.
Forty-one patients (123 vascular territories) with angiographic 2- or 3-vessel coronary artery disease (visual stenosis >50 %) underwent high-resolution adenosine stress perfusion CMR at 1.5 T and FFR measurement. An FFR value of <0.75 was considered significant. On a per patient basis, CMR and FFR detected identical ischemic territories in 19 patients (46 %) (mean number of territories 0.7+/-0.7 in both (p = 1.0)). On a per vessel basis, 89 out of 123 territories demonstrated concordance between the CMR and FFR results (72 %). In 34 % of the study population, CMR resulted in fewer ischemic territories than FFR; in 12 % CMR resulted in more ischemic territories than FFR. There was good concordance between the two methods to detect myocardial ischemia on a per-patient (k =0.658 95 % CI 0.383-0.933) level and moderate concordance on a per-vessel (k = 0.453 95 % CI 0.294-0.612) basis.
There is good concordance between perfusion CMR and FFR for the identification of myocardial ischemia in patients with multi-vessel disease. However, some discrepancy remains and at this stage it is unclear whether CMR underestimates or FFR overestimates the number of ischemic segments in multi-vessel disease.
灌注心血管磁共振成像(CMR)和血流储备分数(FFR)正成为评估心肌缺血的最准确工具,可用于无创评估或在导管室进行评估。然而,关于多支血管病变患者中比较CMR和FFR的数据有限。本研究旨在评估在血管造影显示有多支冠状动脉病变的患者中,CMR检测到的心肌缺血与FFR之间的相关性。
41例(123个血管节段)血管造影显示有2支或3支冠状动脉病变(目测狭窄>50%)的患者接受了1.5T高分辨率腺苷负荷灌注CMR检查和FFR测量。FFR值<0.75被认为具有显著性。在个体患者层面,CMR和FFR在19例患者(46%)中检测到相同的缺血节段(两者的节段平均数均为0.7±0.7,p = 1.0)。在个体血管层面,123个节段中的89个节段在CMR和FFR结果之间显示出一致性(72%)。在34%的研究人群中,CMR显示的缺血节段少于FFR;在12%的人群中,CMR显示的缺血节段多于FFR。两种方法在个体患者层面检测心肌缺血的一致性良好(k = 0.658,95%CI 0.383 - 0.933),在个体血管层面的一致性为中等(k = 0.453,95%CI 0.294 - 0.612)。
对于多支血管病变患者,灌注CMR和FFR在识别心肌缺血方面具有良好的一致性。然而,仍存在一些差异,目前尚不清楚在多支血管病变中CMR是低估还是FFR高估了缺血节段的数量。