Assessment of coronary flow reserve with fast cine phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging: Comparison with measurement by Doppler guide wire

Shibata, Masakazu; Sakuma, Hajime; Isaka, Naoki; Takeda, Kan; Higgins, Charles B.; Nakano, Takeshi

doi:10.1002/(sici)1522-2586(199910)10:4<563::aid-jmri9>3.0.co;2-h

Cited by 40 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This observation has also been reported from other authors. 19,29,30 It can be mainly attributed to the lower temporal resolution (and, thus, the highest flow velocity during the cardiac cycle is missed) and the lower spatial resolution (and, thus, an average flow velocity of a small region of interest, rather than the fastest flow velocity within the vessel, is determined) compared with intravascular Doppler. However, underestimation was systematic and thus can be corrected for.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Noninvasive Determination of Coronary Blood Flow Velocity With Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Patients After Stent Deployment

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-In patients with coronary artery stents, no direct noninvasive coronary artery imaging is possible with magnetic resonance (MR). A well-established method for the assessment of the functional significance of a coronary lesion is the measurement of coronary flow reserve by invasive intracoronary Doppler. The purpose of the study was to determine coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) with MR after stent deployment. Methods and Results-Thirty-eight patients after successful PTCA and stent deployment were included. CFVR was measured perpendicular to the artery distal to the stent using phase-contrast velocity quantification at rest and during adenosine-stimulated hyperemia with a 1.5T MR tomograph (ACS NT, Philips). Measurements were repeated after 3 months and compared with invasive coronary angiography. In 18 patients, additional invasive Doppler flow measurements were obtained. CFVR could be determined in 29 of 38 (76%) of the patients. After 3 months, significant differences were obtained between coronary arteries with and without restenosis. Using a threshold of 1.2, a sensitivity of 83% with a specificity of 94% was achieved for Ն75% stenoses. CFVR with CMR was similar to Doppler results (rϭ0.87), with a mean relative difference of 7.5%. Conclusions-In patients with preserved coronary microcirculating vasoreactivity that are suitable for MR coronary angiography and flow assessments, CMR measures of coronary blood flow velocities reserve may be used to detect in-stent restenosis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Noninvasive Determination of Coronary Blood Flow Velocity With Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Patients After Stent Deployment

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Correction for the through-plane motion of the vessel itself is generally performed by subtracting the velocity of an area of adjacent myocardium. For the left coronary artery, this results in the expected diastolic flow predominance [58]. Although studies have reported reasonably good correlations (r=0.7-0.9) between MR and Doppler data, breath-hold segmented FLASH underestimates velocities, with values being typically only 30-40% of those measured by Doppler [58,59].…”

Section: Coronary Artery Blood Flow (Cbf)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the left coronary artery, this results in the expected diastolic flow predominance [58]. Although studies have reported reasonably good correlations (r=0.7-0.9) between MR and Doppler data, breath-hold segmented FLASH underestimates velocities, with values being typically only 30-40% of those measured by Doppler [58,59]. Reducing the acquisition window increases accuracy [59] (Fig.…”

Section: Coronary Artery Blood Flow (Cbf)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Applications of phase-contrast flow and velocity imaging in cardiovascular MRI

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of cardiovascular clinical and research applications of MRI phase-contrast velocity imaging, also known as velocity mapping or flow imaging. Phase-contrast basic principles, advantages, limitations, common pitfalls and artefacts are described. It can measure many different aspects of the complicated blood flow in the heart and vessels: volume flow (cardiac output, shunt, valve regurgitation), peak blood velocity (for stenosis), patterns and timings of velocity waveforms and flow distributions within heart chambers (abnormal ventricular function) and vessels (pulse-wave velocity, vessel wall disease). The review includes phase-contrast applications in cardiac function, heart valves, congenital heart diseases, major blood vessels, coronary arteries and myocardial wall velocity.

show abstract

“…The first is epicardial coronary stenosis [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] and the second is disturbance of the microcirculation. [9][10][11][12][13][14] In this study, all patients underwent coronary angiography and the absence of angiographically significant coronary stenosis was verified.…”

Section: Difference In the Impairment Of Vasodilatation Capacitymentioning

confidence: 71%

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Therefore, the MFR value is clinically useful for decision-making and the strategy of coronary intervention. Recent studies have shown that MFR is impaired by age 9 and coronary risk factors, such as smoking, 10 hyperlipidemia (HPL), 11,12 diabetes mellitus (DM), 13 and hypertension (HTN), 14 even in the absence of coronary stenosis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 72%

Difference in Myocardial Flow Reserve Between Patients With Dilated Cardiomyopathy and Those With Dilated Phase of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Evaluation by 15O-Water PET

Ohba

Hosokawa

Kambara

et al. 2007

Circ J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

yocardial flow reserve (MFR) is defined as the ratio of maximal to basal myocardial blood flow (MBF), and it is related to the severity of coronary artery stenosis. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Therefore, the MFR value is clinically useful for decision-making and the strategy of coronary intervention. Recent studies have shown that MFR is impaired by age 9 and coronary risk factors, such as smoking, 10 hyperlipidemia (HPL), 11,12 diabetes mellitus (DM), 13 and hypertension (HTN), 14 even in the absence of coronary stenosis. The MFR can be accurately measured invasively and noninvasively. Clinical evaluation of MFR using positron emission tomography (PET) is a safe and repeatable method to use for patients without coronary artery disease, 15-17 compared with invasive methods such as Doppler flow-wire. 18 Several studies have reported that MFR is impaired, together with the poor prognosis, in both patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) [19][20][21][22][23][24] and those with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). [25][26][27][28][29][30] In particular, the prognosis is poorer for patients with the dilated phase of HCM (DHCM), who have systolic dysfunction and left ventricular (LV) remodeling, than in those with DCM. However, the pathophysiological differences between these 2 types of cardiomyopathies remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare MBF, MFR and coronary vascular resistance (CVR) between patients with DCM and those with DHCM, using 15 O-labeled water PET,8,[31][32][33] which is similar to 13 N ammonia PET. 34 Methods Study PopulationWe studied 30 patients with cardiomyopathies (23 men, 7 women; mean age 60.9±12.3 years) who were admitted to the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Kyoto University Hospital because of worsening heart failure. The group included 23 patients with DCM (Group A) and 7 patients with DHCM (Group B). After admission, the patients were treated with conventional medical therapy, and Circ J 2007; 71: 884 -890 (Received October 10, 2006; revised manuscript received January 24, 2007; accepted February 26, 2007 (MFR) is impaired in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and the reduced MFR may be related to poor prognosis. Several studies report that the mortality rate for patients with DHCM is higher than for DCM, but the difference between these 2 cardiomyopathies is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to assess the MFR of these 2 cardiomyopathies, using 15 O-water positron emission tomography (PET) to elucidate their differences. Methods and ResultsIn total 30 patients were investigated: 23 with DCM (Group A) and 7 with DHCM (Group B). All those who were in a stable condition underwent cardiac catheterization. Myocardial blood flow (MBF) at rest and under ATP infusion was measured by 15 O-water PET, and the MFR was calculated. There were no significant differences in the hemodynamics of the 2 groups. The mean MFR in DHCM was significantly lower than that in DCM (1.49±0.31 vs 2.62±1.08; p=0.042), whereas MBF at rest did not differ (DCM vs DHCM: 0.66±0.20 ...

show abstract

Assessment of coronary flow reserve with fast cine phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging: Comparison with measurement by Doppler guide wire

Cited by 40 publications

References 21 publications

Noninvasive Determination of Coronary Blood Flow Velocity With Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Patients After Stent Deployment

Noninvasive Determination of Coronary Blood Flow Velocity With Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Patients After Stent Deployment

Applications of phase-contrast flow and velocity imaging in cardiovascular MRI

Difference in Myocardial Flow Reserve Between Patients With Dilated Cardiomyopathy and Those With Dilated Phase of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Evaluation by 15O-Water PET

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About