Advertisement

Myocardial Perfusion and Late Gadolinium Enhancement Imaging in Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance to Assess Coronary Artery Disease

  • Andrew E. AraiEmail author
  • Li-Yueh Hsu
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Cardiology book series (CONCARD)

Abstract

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a well established imaging modality for assessing patients with coronary artery disease. CMR images can provide high quality information about myocardial anatomy, function, perfusion, and viability. These are all critical elements in the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease. Perfusion and viability imaging by CMR most commonly depend on gadolinium contrast agents. This chapter aims to provide background in the methods, validations, and clinical utility of these methods.

Keywords

Myocardial perfusion Myocardial infarction Myocardial fibrosis Ischemia, edema Late gadolinium enhancement Gadolinium 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI).

References

  1. 1.
    Anzidei M, Napoli A, Marincola BC, et al. Gadofosveset-enhanced MR angiography of carotid arteries: does steady-state imaging improve accuracy of first-pass imaging? Comparison with selective digital subtraction angiography. Radiology. 2009;251:457–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perreault P, Edelman MA, Baum RA, et al. MR angiography with gadofosveset trisodium for peripheral vascular disease: phase II trial. Radiology. 2003;229:811–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bane O, Lee DC, Benefield BC, et al. Leakage and water exchange characterization of gadofosveset in the myocardium. Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;32:224–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aime S, Caravan P. Biodistribution of gadolinium-based contrast agents, including gadolinium deposition. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30:1259–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim RJ, Fieno DS, Parrish TB, et al. Relationship of MRI delayed contrast enhancement to irreversible injury, infarct age, and contractile function. Circulation. 1999;100:1992–2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim RJ, Wu E, Rafael A, et al. The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to identify reversible myocardial dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1445–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ugander M, Oki AJ, Hsu LY, et al. Extracellular volume imaging by magnetic resonance imaging provides insights into overt and sub-clinical myocardial pathology. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1268–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simonetti OP, Kim RJ, Fieno DS, et al. An improved MR imaging technique for the visualization of myocardial infarction. Radiology. 2001;218:215–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, 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;105:539–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kellman P, Derbyshire JA, Agyeman KO, McVeigh ER, Arai AE. Extended coverage first-pass perfusion imaging using slice-interleaved TSENSE. Magn Reson Med. 2004;51:200–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jogiya R, Kozerke S, Morton G, et al. Validation of dynamic 3-dimensional whole heart magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging against fractional flow reserve for the detection of significant coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:756–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manka R, Paetsch I, Kozerke S, et al. Whole-heart dynamic three-dimensional magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for the detection of coronary artery disease defined by fractional flow reserve: determination of volumetric myocardial ischaemic burden and coronary lesion location. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2016–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kellman P, Arai AE. Imaging sequences for first pass perfusion –a review. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2007;9:525–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mordini FE, Haddad T, Hsu LY, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of stress perfusion CMR in comparison with quantitative coronary angiography: fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and qualitative assessment. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1503–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation. 2008;117:1283–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:991–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1208–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Takx RA, Blomberg BA, El Aidi H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion imaging compared to invasive coronary angiography with fractional flow reserve meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:e002666.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Watkins S, McGeoch R, Lyne J, et al. Validation of magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging with fractional flow reserve for the detection of significant coronary heart disease. Circulation. 2009;120:2207–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bernhardt P, Walcher T, Rottbauer W, Wohrle J. Quantification of myocardial perfusion reserve at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla: a comparison to fractional flow reserve. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;28:2049–56. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walcher T, Manzke R, Hombach V, Rottbauer W, Wohrle J, Bernhardt P. Myocardial perfusion reserve assessed by T2-prepared steady-state free precession blood oxygen level-dependent magnetic resonance imaging in comparison to fractional flow reserve. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:580–6. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bettencourt N, Chiribiri A, Schuster A, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of functionally significant obstructive coronary artery disease: a prospective study. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:765–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chiribiri A, Hautvast GL, Lockie T, et al. Assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity and location: quantitative analysis of transmural perfusion gradients by high-resolution MRI versus FFR. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:600–9. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Groothuis JG, Beek AM, Brinckman SL, et al. Combined non-invasive functional and anatomical diagnostic work-up in clinical practice: the magnetic resonance and computed tomography in suspected coronary artery disease (MARCC) study. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:1990–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pereira E, Bettencourt N, Ferreira N, et al. Incremental value of adenosine stress cardiac magnetic resonance in coronary artery disease detection. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:4160–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ebersberger U, Makowski MR, Schoepf UJ, et al. Magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging at 3.0 Tesla for the identification of myocardial ischaemia: comparison with coronary catheter angiography and fractional flow reserve measurements. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;14:1174–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Radjenovic A, et al. Clinical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging in coronary heart disease: the CE-MARC study. Trials. 2009;10:62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Younger JF, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schwitter J, Wacker CM, van Rossum AC, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N, et al. Superior diagnostic performance of perfusion-cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus SPECT to detect coronary artery disease: the secondary endpoints of the multicenter multivendor MR-IMPACT II (Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary Artery Disease Trial). J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Christian TF, Rettmann DW, Aletras AH, et al. Absolute myocardial perfusion in canines measured by using dual-bolus first-pass MR imaging. Radiology. 2004;232:677–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hsu LY, Kellman P, Arai AE. Nonlinear myocardial signal intensity correction improves quantification of contrast-enhanced first-pass MR perfusion in humans. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27:793–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lockie T, Ishida M, Perera D, et al. High-resolution magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging at 3.0-Tesla to detect hemodynamically significant coronary stenoses as determined by fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:70–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lee DC, Simonetti OP, Harris KR, et al. Magnetic resonance versus radionuclide pharmacological stress perfusion imaging for flow-limiting stenoses of varying severity. Circulation. 2004;110:58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Salerno M, Beller GA. Noninvasive assessment of myocardial perfusion. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:412–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hsu LY, Groves DW, Aletras AH, Kellman P, Arai AE. A quantitative pixel-wise measurement of myocardial blood flow by contrast-enhanced first-pass CMR perfusion imaging: microsphere validation in dogs and feasibility study in humans. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:154–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kuhl HP, Katoh M, Buhr C, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance perfusion imaging versus invasive fractional flow reserve for assessment of the hemodynamic significance of epicardial coronary artery stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:1090–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Morton G, Chiribiri A, Ishida M, et al. Quantification of absolute myocardial perfusion in patients with coronary artery disease: comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1546–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Morton G, Jogiya R, Plein S, Schuster A, Chiribiri A, Nagel E. Quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging: inter-study reproducibility. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;13:954–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Patel AR, Antkowiak PF, Nandalur KR, et al. Assessment of advanced coronary artery disease: advantages of quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:561–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Popio KA, Gorlin R, Bechtel D, Levine JA. Postextrasystolic potentiation as a predictor of potential myocardial viability: preoperative analyses compared with studies after coronary bypass surgery. Am J Cardiol. 1977;39:944–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Baer FM, Voth E, Schneider CA, Theissen P, Schicha H, Sechtem U. Comparison of low-dose dobutamine-gradient-echo magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with chronic coronary artery disease. A functional and morphological approach to the detection of residual myocardial viability. Circulation. 1995;91:1006–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Baer FM, Theissen P, Schneider CA, et al. Dobutamine magnetic resonance imaging predicts contractile recovery of chronically dysfunctional myocardium after successful revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:1040–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kellman P, Arai AE, McVeigh ER, Aletras AH. Phase-sensitive inversion recovery for detecting myocardial infarction using gadolinium-delayed hyperenhancement. Magn Reson Med. 2002;47:372–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Peukert D, Laule M, Taupitz M, Kaufels N, Hamm B, Dewey M. 3D and 2D delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging for detection of myocardial infarction: preclinical and clinical results. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:788–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kellman P, Xue H, Olivieri LJ, et al. Dark blood late enhancement imaging. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;18:77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Muscogiuri G, Rehwald WG, Schoepf UJ, et al. T(Rho) and magnetization transfer and INvErsion recovery (TRAMINER)-prepared imaging: a novel contrast-enhanced flow-independent dark-blood technique for the evaluation of myocardial late gadolinium enhancement in patients with myocardial infarction. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;45:1429–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bandettini WP, Kellman P, Mancini C, et al. MultiContrast Delayed Enhancement (MCODE) improves detection of subendocardial myocardial infarction by late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a clinical validation study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Xue H, Shah S, Greiser A, et al. Motion correction for myocardial T1 mapping using image registration with synthetic image estimation. Magn Reson Med. 2012;67:1644–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kloner RA, Jennings RB. Consequences of brief ischemia: stunning, preconditioning, and their clinical implications: part 1. Circulation. 2001;104:2981–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wesbey GE, Higgins CB, McNamara MT, et al. Effect of gadolinium-DTPA on the magnetic relaxation times of normal and infarcted myocardium. Radiology. 1984;153:165–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    McNamara MT, Tscholakoff D, Revel D, et al. Differentiation of reversible and irreversible myocardial injury by MR imaging with and without gadolinium-DTPA. Radiology. 1986;158:765–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Peshock RM, Malloy CR, Buja LM, Nunnally RL, Parkey RW, Willerson JT. Magnetic resonance imaging of acute myocardial infarction: gadolinium diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid as a marker of reperfusion. Circulation. 1986;74:1434–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rehr RB, Peshock RM, Malloy CR, et al. Improved in vivo magnetic resonance imaging of acute myocardial infarction after intravenous paramagnetic contrast agent administration. Am J Cardiol. 1986;57:864–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fieno DS, Kim RJ, Chen EL, Lomasney JW, Klocke FJ, Judd RM. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of myocardium at risk: distinction between reversible and irreversible injury throughout infarct healing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1985–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rehwald WG, Fieno DS, Chen EL, Kim RJ, Judd RM. Myocardial magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent concentrations after reversible and irreversible ischemic injury. Circulation. 2002;105:224–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hsu LY, Natanzon A, Kellman P, Hirsch GA, Aletras AH, Arai AE. Quantitative myocardial infarction on delayed enhancement MRI. Part I: animal validation of an automated feature analysis and combined thresholding infarct sizing algorithm. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;23:298–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Maskali F, Poussier S, Marie PY, et al. High-resolution simultaneous imaging of SPECT, PET, and MRI tracers on histologic sections of myocardial infarction. J Nucl Cardiol. 2005;12:229–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Thornhill RE, Prato FS, Wisenberg G, Moran GR, Sykes J. Determining the extent to which delayed-enhancement images reflect the partition-coefficient of Gd-DTPA in canine studies of reperfused and unreperfused myocardial infarction. Magn Reson Med. 2004;52:1069–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Moran GR, Thornhill RE, Sykes J, Prato FS. Myocardial viability imaging using Gd-DTPA: physiological modeling of infarcted myocardium, and impact on injection strategy and imaging time. Magn Reson Med. 2002;48:791–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Selvanayagam JB, Kardos A, Francis JM, et al. Value of delayed-enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in predicting myocardial viability after surgical revascularization. Circulation. 2004;110:1535–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Knuesel PR, Nanz D, Wyss C, et al. Characterization of dysfunctional myocardium by positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance: relation to functional outcome after revascularization. Circulation. 2003;108:1095–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wu E, Judd RM, Vargas JD, Klocke FJ, Bonow RO, Kim RJ. Visualisation of presence, location, and transmural extent of healed Q-wave and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. Lancet. 2001;357:21–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wagner A, Mahrholdt H, Holly TA, et al. Contrast-enhanced MRI and routine single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging for detection of subendocardial myocardial infarcts: an imaging study. Lancet. 2003;361:374–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kuhl HP, Beek AM, van der Weerdt AP, et al. Myocardial viability in chronic ischemic heart disease: comparison of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:1341–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Klein C, Nekolla SG, Bengel FM, et al. Assessment of myocardial viability with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with positron emission tomography. Circulation. 2002;105:162–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mahrholdt H, Wagner A, Holly TA, et al. Reproducibility of chronic infarct size measurement by contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation. 2002;106:2322–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wellnhofer E, Olariu A, Klein C, et al. Magnetic resonance low-dose dobutamine test is superior to SCAR quantification for the prediction of functional recovery. Circulation. 2004;109:2172–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Nelson C, McCrohon J, Khafagi F, Rose S, Leano R, Marwick TH. Impact of scar thickness on the assessment of viability using dobutamine echocardiography and thallium single-photon emission computed tomography: a comparison with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:1248–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Steel K, Broderick R, Gandla V, et al. Complementary prognostic values of stress myocardial perfusion and late gadolinium enhancement imaging by cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2009;120:1390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Coelho-Filho OR, Seabra LF, Mongeon FP, et al. Stress myocardial perfusion imaging by CMR provides strong prognostic value to cardiac events regardless of patient’s sex. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:850–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Cheong BY, Muthupillai R, Wilson JM, et al. Prognostic significance of delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging: survival of 857 patients with and without left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation. 2009;120:2069–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bertaso AG, Richardson JD, Wong DT, et al. Prognostic value of adenosine stress perfusion cardiac MRI with late gadolinium enhancement in an intermediate cardiovascular risk population. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167:2055–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bodi V, Sanchis J, Lopez-Lereu MP, et al. Prognostic value of dipyridamole stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1174–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Bello D, Fieno DS, Kim RJ, et al. Infarct morphology identifies patients with substrate for sustained ventricular tachycardia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1104–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Bleeker GB, Kaandorp TA, Lamb HJ, et al. Effect of posterolateral scar tissue on clinical and echocardiographic improvement after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Circulation. 2006;113:969–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institutes of HealthNational Heart, Lung and Blood InstituteBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations