Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracies of 1.5T and 3T Stress Myocardial Perfusion Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance for Detecting Significant Coronary Artery Disease.
10.3348/kjr.2018.19.6.1007
- Author:
Jee Young MIN
1
;
Sung Min KO
;
In Young SONG
;
Jung Geun YI
;
Hweung Kon HWANG
;
Je Kyoun SHIN
Author Information
1. Department of Radiology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul 05030, Korea. ksm9723@yahoo.co.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Atherosclerosis;
Coronary artery disease;
Magnetic resonance imaging;
Myocardial perfusion;
Invasive coronary angiography, 3 tesla
- MeSH:
Area Under Curve;
Atherosclerosis;
Coronary Angiography;
Coronary Artery Disease*;
Coronary Vessels*;
Humans;
Magnetic Resonance Imaging;
Methods;
Myocardial Infarction;
Perfusion*;
Prevalence;
Prospective Studies;
ROC Curve;
Sensitivity and Specificity
- From:Korean Journal of Radiology
2018;19(6):1007-1020
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) myocardial perfusion at 1.5- and 3-tesla (T) for detecting significant coronary artery disease (CAD), with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as the reference method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 281 patients (age 62.4 ± 8.3 years, 193 men) with suspected or known CAD who had undergone 1.5T or 3T CMR and ICA. Two independent radiologists interpreted perfusion defects. With ICA as the reference standard, the diagnostic performance of 1.5T and 3T CMR for identifying significant CAD (≥ 50% diameter reduction of the left main and ≥ 70% diameter reduction of other epicardial arteries) was determined. RESULTS: No differences were observed in baseline characteristics or prevalence of CAD and old myocardial infarction (MI) using 1.5T (n = 135) or 3T (n = 146) systems. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for detecting significant CAD were similar between the 1.5T (84%, 64%, 74%, 76%, and 0.75 per patient and 68%, 83%, 66%, 84%, and 0.76 per vessel) and 3T (80%, 71%, 71%, 80%, and 0.76 per patient and 75%, 86%, 64%, 91%, and 0.81 per vessel) systems. In patients with multi-vessel CAD without old MI, the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC with 3T were greater than those with 1.5T on a per-vessel basis (71% vs. 36%, 92% vs. 69%, and 0.82 vs. 0.53, respectively). CONCLUSION: 3T CMR has similar diagnostic performance to 1.5T CMR in detecting significant CAD, except for higher diagnostic performance in patients with multi-vessel CAD without old MI.
