Display options
Cite
Functional cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessment of myocardial viability and perfusion: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2003;3(6):1-82
(2003). Functional cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessment of myocardial viability and perfusion: an evidence-based analysis. Ontario health technology assessment series, 3(6), 1-82.
"Functional cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessment of myocardial viability and perfusion: an evidence-based analysis." Ontario health technology assessment series vol. 3,6 (2003): 1-82.
Functional cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessment of myocardial viability and perfusion: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2003;3(6):1-82. Epub 2003 Nov 01. PMID: 23074446; PMCID: PMC3387764.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2003;3(6):1-82. Epub 2003 Nov 01.

Functional cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessment of myocardial viability and perfusion: an evidence-based analysis.

Ontario health technology assessment series

[No authors listed]

PMID: 23074446 PMCID: PMC3387764

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this health technology policy assessment was to determine the effectiveness safety and cost-effectiveness of using functional cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the assessment of myocardial viability and perfusion in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction.

RESULTS: Functional MRI has become increasingly investigated as a noninvasive method for assessing myocardial viability and perfusion. Most patients in the published literature have mild to moderate impaired LV function. It is possible that the severity of LV dysfunction may be an important factor that can alter the diagnostic accuracy of imaging techniques.There is some evidence of comparable or better performance of functional cardiac MRI for the assessment of myocardial viability and perfusion compared with other imaging techniques. However limitations to most of the studies included:Functional cardiac MRI studies that assess myocardial viability and perfusion have had small sample sizes.Some studies assessed myocardial viability/perfusion in patients who had already undergone revascularization, or excluded patients with a prior MI (Schwitter et al., 2001).Lack of explicit detail of patient recruitment.Patients with LVEF >35%.Interstudy variability in post MI imaging time(including acute or chronic MI), when patients with a prior MI were included.Poor interobserver agreement (kappa statistic) in the interpretation of the results. Traditionally, 0.80 is considered "good".Cardiac MRI measurement of myocardial perfusion to as an adjunct tool to help diagnose CAD (prior to a definitive coronary angiography) has also been examined in some studies, with methodological limitations, yielding comparable results.Many studies examining myocardial viability and perfusion report on the accuracy of imaging methods with limited data on long-term patient outcome and management.Kim et al. (2000) revealed that the transmural extent of hyperenhancement was significantly related to the likelihood of improvement in contractility after revascularization. However, the LVEF in the patient population was 43% prior to revascularization. It is important to know whether the technique has the same degree of accuracy in patients who have more severe LV dysfunction and who would most benefit from an assessment of myocardial viability."Substantial" viability used as a measure of a patient's ability to recover after revascularization has not been definitively reported (how much viability is enough?).Patients with severe LV dysfunction are more likely to have mixtures of surviving myocardium, including normal, infarcted, stunned and hibernating myocardium (Cowley et al., 1999). This may lead to a lack of homogeneity of response to testing and to revascularization and contribute to inter- and intra-study differences.There is a need for a large prospective study with adequate follow-up time for patients with CAD and LV dysfunction (LVEF<35%) comparing MRI and an alternate imaging technique. There is some evidence that MRI has comparable sensitivity, specificity and accuracy to PET for determining myocardial viability. However, there is a lack of evidence comparing the accuracy of these two techniques to predict LV function recovery. In addition, some studies refer to PET as the gold standard for the assessment of myocardial viability. Therefore, PET may be an ideal noninvasive imaging comparator to MRI for a prospective study with follow-up.To date, there is a lack of cost-effectiveness analyses (or any economic analyses) of functional cardiac MRI versus an alternate noninvasive imaging method for the assessment of myocardial viability/perfusion.

CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that the accuracy of functional cardiac MRI compares favourably with alternate imaging techniques for the assessment of myocardial viability and perfusion.There is insufficient evidence whether functional cardiac MRI can better select which patients [who have CAD and severe LV dysfunction (LVEF <35%)] may benefit from revascularization compared with an alternate noninvasive imaging technology.There is insufficient evidence whether functional cardiac MRI can better select which patients should proceed to invasive coronary angiography for the definitive diagnosis of CAD, compared with an alternate noninvasive imaging technology.There is a need for a large prospective (potentially multicentre) study with adequate follow-up time for patients with CAD and LV dysfunction (LVEF<35%) comparing MRI and PET.Since longer follow-up time may be associated with restenosis or graft occlusion, it has been suggested to have serial measurements after revascularization (Cowley et al., 1999).

References

  1. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 1999;1(2):ix-x - PubMed
  2. MAGMA. 2000 Dec;11(3):104-13 - PubMed
  3. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003 Jun;17(6):656-62 - PubMed
  4. Jpn Circ J. 2000 Jul;64(7):487-94 - PubMed
  5. Am J Cardiol. 2001 Jan 1;87(1):95-9 - PubMed
  6. Herz. 2003 Mar;28(2):82-9 - PubMed
  7. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2002 Apr;13(2):95-106 - PubMed
  8. Circulation. 2002 Aug 27;106(9):1083-9 - PubMed
  9. Am J Cardiol. 1990 Apr 1;65(13):845-51 - PubMed
  10. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2002;4(2):xi-xii - PubMed
  11. Ann Intern Med. 1999 May 4;130(9):719-28 - PubMed
  12. Am Heart J. 2002 Jun;143(6):1046-51 - PubMed
  13. Magn Reson Med. 2003 Oct;50(4):670-4 - PubMed
  14. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Mar 6;39(5):864-70 - PubMed
  15. Am Heart J. 2001 Mar;141(3):360-6 - PubMed
  16. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999 Apr;33(5):1386-94 - PubMed
  17. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2001 Feb;26(2):147-86 - PubMed
  18. Lancet. 2003 Feb 1;361(9355):374-9 - PubMed
  19. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002 May;73(5):1403-9; discussion 1410 - PubMed
  20. Am J Cardiol. 1996 Aug 15;78(4):415-9 - PubMed
  21. Eur J Heart Fail. 2003 Jun;5(3):217-27 - PubMed
  22. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001 Sep;14(3):306-10 - PubMed
  23. Circulation. 2003 Apr 8;107(13):1738-43 - PubMed
  24. Radiology. 2003 Mar;226(3):707-16 - PubMed
  25. Radiology. 2003 Jan;226(1):138-44 - PubMed
  26. Am J Card Imaging. 1994 Apr;8(2):189-98 - PubMed
  27. Am J Cardiol. 2000 Dec 15;86(12):1299-305 - PubMed
  28. Eur Heart J. 1999 Jan;20(2):157-66 - PubMed
  29. N Engl J Med. 1983 Aug 11;309(6):331-6 - PubMed
  30. Circulation. 2001 May 8;103(18):2230-5 - PubMed
  31. Radiology. 2001 Mar;218(3):703-10 - PubMed
  32. Circulation. 1999 Feb 16;99(6):744-50 - PubMed
  33. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Nov 1;36(5):1557-64 - PubMed
  34. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Nov 15;36(6):1835-40 - PubMed
  35. Am J Cardiol. 1997 Aug 1;80(3):334-6 - PubMed
  36. Nucl Med Commun. 2001 Jun;22(6):663-71 - PubMed
  37. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Apr 3;39(7):1151-8 - PubMed
  38. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 May 7;41(9):1568-72 - PubMed
  39. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Jun;178(6):1335-47 - PubMed
  40. Magn Reson Med. 2001 Sep;46(3):523-34 - PubMed
  41. Circulation. 1998 Aug 18;98(7):625-7 - PubMed
  42. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 Apr;31(5):1040-8 - PubMed
  43. J Nucl Med. 1997 Mar;38(3):438-42 - PubMed
  44. Circulation. 1998 May 12;97(18):1802-9 - PubMed
  45. Circulation. 1997 Nov 4;96(9):2892-8 - PubMed
  46. Eur Heart J. 2000 Jun;21(12):981-91 - PubMed
  47. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1995 Aug;18(8):1549-55 - PubMed
  48. Circulation. 2000 Mar 28;101(12):1379-83 - PubMed
  49. Health Technol Assess. 2004 Jul;8(30):iii-iv, 1-207 - PubMed
  50. N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 16;343(20):1488-90 - PubMed
  51. Am J Cardiol. 1997 Sep 11;80(5B):20F-27F - PubMed
  52. J Nucl Med. 2002 Jun;43(6):803-5 - PubMed
  53. Circulation. 2001 Nov 13;104(20):2412-6 - PubMed
  54. Lancet. 1998 Mar 14;351(9105):815-9 - PubMed
  55. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001 Mar;13(3):361-6 - PubMed
  56. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 Oct;32(4):921-6 - PubMed
  57. N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 16;343(20):1445-53 - PubMed
  58. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2002;4(3):381-410 - PubMed
  59. Jpn Heart J. 1987 May;28(3):307-21 - PubMed
  60. J Nucl Cardiol. 1996 Mar-Apr;3(2):167-82 - PubMed
  61. Pediatr Cardiol. 2000 Jan-Feb;21(1):3-4 - PubMed
  62. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997 May-Jun;7(3):612 - PubMed
  63. Circulation. 1995 Sep 1;92(5):1117-25 - PubMed
  64. Eur Heart J. 1998 Jun;19(6):847-58 - PubMed
  65. Circulation. 1999 Oct 19;100(16):1676-9 - PubMed
  66. Circulation. 2002 Oct 29;106(18):2322-7 - PubMed
  67. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 May 7;41(9):1561-7 - PubMed
  68. J Nucl Cardiol. 1997 Mar-Apr;4(2 Pt 2):S141-51 - PubMed
  69. Radiology. 2003 Mar;226(3):717-22 - PubMed
  70. Circulation. 1995 Jan 1;91(1):54-65 - PubMed
  71. Radiology. 2000 Dec;217(3):729-36 - PubMed
  72. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2000;2(1):7-14 - PubMed
  73. Circulation. 2001 Sep 4;104(10):1101-7 - PubMed
  74. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2002 Nov;17(6):663-70 - PubMed
  75. Circulation. 2003 Aug 12;108(6):647-53 - PubMed
  76. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Mar 5;41(5):841-2 - PubMed
  77. Circulation. 1995 Aug 1;92(3):334-41 - PubMed
  78. Am J Cardiol. 1999 May 1;83(9):1401-3, A8 - PubMed
  79. Circulation. 2003 Jul 29;108(4):432-7 - PubMed
  80. Cardiol Clin. 1998 May;16(2):135-60 - PubMed
  81. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999 Sep;10(3):418-22 - PubMed
  82. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Mar 5;41(5):834-40 - PubMed
  83. Circulation. 2000 May 23;101(20):2375-81 - PubMed
  84. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999 Sep;34(3):730-8 - PubMed
  85. Eur Heart J. 2000 Jun;21(12):961-3 - PubMed
  86. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Aug 6;42(3):505-12 - PubMed
  87. Lancet. 2001 Jan 6;357(9249):21-8 - PubMed
  88. Circulation. 1972 Oct;46(4):640-8 - PubMed
  89. Circulation. 1999 Sep 21;100(12):1298-304 - PubMed
  90. Pediatr Cardiol. 2000 Jan-Feb;21(1):59-69 - PubMed
  91. Chest. 2002 Nov;122(5):1638-48 - PubMed
  92. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 Dec;32(7):2049-56 - PubMed
  93. Circulation. 1999 Oct 19;100(16):1697-702 - PubMed
  94. Eur Radiol. 2000;10(1):7-11 - PubMed
  95. Radiology. 2001 Jan;218(1):215-23 - PubMed
  96. Circulation. 1995 Mar 1;91(5):1347-53 - PubMed
  97. J Thorac Imaging. 2000 Oct;15(4):218-29 - PubMed
  98. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 1998 Nov;6(4):749-74 - PubMed
  99. J Nucl Med. 2002 Jun;43(6):806-10 - PubMed
  100. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1996;28 Suppl 1:S37-44 - PubMed
  101. Nucl Med Commun. 1998 May;19(5):457-62 - PubMed
  102. J Nucl Cardiol. 2001 Nov-Dec;8(6):645-51 - PubMed
  103. J Thorac Imaging. 2000 Oct;15(4):243-51 - PubMed
  104. Circulation. 2002 Aug 20;106(8):957-61 - PubMed
  105. Circulation. 1997 Aug 5;96(3):793-800 - PubMed
  106. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998 May;25(5):522-30 - PubMed
  107. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2002;4(4):471-80 - PubMed
  108. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001 Feb;13(2):192-200 - PubMed
  109. Pediatr Cardiol. 2000 Jan-Feb;21(1):47-58 - PubMed
  110. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999 Sep;10(3):411-7 - PubMed
  111. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1991 Nov-Dec;15(6):959-65 - PubMed
  112. Eur Radiol. 2003 Mar;13(3):498-506 - PubMed
  113. Circulation. 2000 Jun 13;101(23):2696-702 - PubMed
  114. Eur Heart J. 1998 Jan;19(1):19-39 - PubMed
  115. Radiology. 1998 Sep;208(3):573-6 - PubMed
  116. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Oct;30(4):1002-8 - PubMed
  117. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Jun 19;39(12):2059-68 - PubMed
  118. Magn Reson Med. 2002 May;47(5):844-9 - PubMed
  119. Circulation. 1998 Dec 15;98(24):2687-94 - PubMed
  120. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2000;2(3):189-200 - PubMed
  121. Circulation. 1998 Nov 3;98(18):1869-74 - PubMed
  122. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2000;2(2):139-41 - PubMed
  123. Circulation. 1998 Mar 3;97(8):765-72 - PubMed
  124. Am Heart J. 1987 Feb;113(2 Pt 1):273-9 - PubMed
  125. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1986;5(1):2-7 - PubMed
  126. Circulation. 2002 Jan 15;105(2):162-7 - PubMed
  127. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995 Feb;25(2):521-47 - PubMed
  128. Am Heart J. 1994 Sep;128(3):484-9 - PubMed

Publication Types