Skip to main content
Log in

Is contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T superior to 1.5 T for detection of coronary artery disease?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim is to compare a compiled clinical routine cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging protocol performed at both 1.5 and 3 T in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing coronary X-ray angiography. CMR including adenosine perfusion and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) at 1.5 T has been established for noninvasive detection of relevant CAD. However, little is known about the potential advantages of 3 T to detect CAD. Fifty-two evaluable patients (62.3 ± 10.2 years) were included into the study. All patients were scanned at both 1.5 and 3 T including adenosine stress and rest perfusion, and LGE imaging. CMR images were analyzed by two blinded readers in consensus. X-Ray angiography served as the reference method. A significant CAD was diagnosed by quantitative coronary analysis. Diagnostic accuracy of the combined analysis of perfusion and LGE imaging yielded better values at 1.5 and 3 T than the analysis of perfusion images alone. Specificity and sensitivity at 3 T was superior to 1.5 T in detecting coronary stenoses ≥50 % (90 vs. 75 % and 84.4 vs. 75 %) and ≥70 % (88 vs. 80 % and 96.3 vs. 88.9 %). This study showed that CMR at 3 T in a routine clinical setting is superior to 1.5 T in detection of significant CAD. 3 T might become the preferred CMR field strength for evaluation of CAD in clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schuetz GM, Zacharopoulou NM, Schlattmann P, Dewey M (2010) Meta-analysis: non-invasive coronary angiography using computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Intern Med 152:167–177

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schwitter J, Nanz D, Kneifel S et al (2001) Assessment of myocardial perfusion in coronary artery disease by magnetic resonance: a comparison with positron emission tomography and coronary angiography. Circulation 103:2230–2235

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nagel E, Klein C, Paetsch I et al (2003) Magnetic resonance perfusion measurements for the non-invasive detection of coronary artery disease. Circulation 108:432–437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Merkle N, Wöhrle J, Grebe O et al (2007) Assessment of myocardial perfusion to detect coronary artery stenoses by steady-state-free-precession magnetic resonance first-pass imaging. Heart 93:1381–1385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bernhardt P, Levenson B, Albrecht A et al (2007) Detection of cardiac small vessel disease by adenosine-stress magnetic resonance. Int J Cardiol 121:261–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilke NM, Jerosch-Herold M, Zenovisch A et al (1999) Magnetic resonance first-pass myocardial perfusion imaging: clinical validation and future applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:676–685

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee DC, Simonetti OP, Harris KR et al (2004) Magnetic resonance versus radionuclide pharmacological stress perfusion imaging for flow limiting stress stenoses of varying severity. Circulation 110:48–65

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bernhardt P, Levenson B, Engels T, Strohm O (2006) Contrast-enhanced adenosine-stress magnetic resonance imaging—feasibility and practicability of a protocol for detection or exclusion of ischemic heart disease in an outpatient setting. Clin Res Cardiol 95:461–467

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wen H, Denison TJ, Singerman RW et al (1997) The intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio in human cardiac imaging at 1.5, 3, and 4 T. J Magn Reson 125:65–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Greenman RL, Shirosky JE, Mulkern RV et al (2003) Double inversion black-blood fast spin-echo imaging of the human heart: a comparison between 1.5 and 3.0 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 17:648–655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Araoz PA, Glockner JF, McGee KP et al (2005) 3 Tesla MR imaging provides improved contrast in first-pass myocardial perfusion imaging over a range of gadolinium doses. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 7:559–565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gutberlet M, Noeske R, Schwinge K et al (2006) Comprehensive cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla: feasibility and implications for clinical applications. Invest Radiol 41:154–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cheng ASH, Pegg TJ, Karamitsos TD et al (2007) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 3 Tesla for the detection of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:2440–2449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bernhardt P, Walcher T, Rottbauer W, Wöhrle J (2012) Quantification of myocardial perfusion reserve at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla: a comparison to fractional flow reserve. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging [Epub ahead of print]

  15. Klem I, Heitner JF, Shah DJ et al (2006) Improved detection of coronary artery disease by stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance with the use of delayed enhancement infarction imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 47:1630–1638

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bernhardt P, Spiess J, Levenson B et al (2009) Combined assessment of myocardial perfusion and late gadolinium enhancement in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass grafts: a multicenter study of an integrated cardiovascular magnetic resonance protocol. J Am Coll Cardiol Imging 2:1292–1300

    Google Scholar 

  17. Klein C, Gebker R, Kokocinski T, Dreysse S, Schnackenburg B, Fleck E, Nagel E (2008) Combined magnetic resonance coronary artery imaging, myocardial perfusion and late gadolinium enhancement in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 10:45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Assmann G, Cullen P, Schulte H (2002) Simple scoring scheme for calculating the risk of acute coronary events based on the 10 years follow-up of the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study. Circulation 105:310–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Executive summary of the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) (2001) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA 285: 2486-2498

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cerqueria MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V et al (2002) 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 105:539–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ortiz-Pérez JT, Rodríguez J, Meyers SN et al (2008) Correspondence between the 17-segment model and coronary arterial anatomy using contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol Img 1:282–293

    Google Scholar 

  22. Scanion PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM et al (1999) ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography. A report of the American college of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography). Developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 99:2345–2357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gibbons RJ, Abrams J, Chatterjee K et al (2003) ACC/AHA guideline update for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: a report of the American college of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina). J Am Coll Cardiol 41:159–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nandalur KR, Dwamena BA, Choudhri AF et al (2007) Diagnostic performance of stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 50:1343–1353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Di Bella EV, Parker DL, Snusas AJ (2005) On the dark rim artefact in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI myocardial perfusion studies. Magn Reson Med 54:1295–1299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilson PW, D’Agostino RB, Levy D et al (1998) Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation 97:1837–1847

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was partly funded by a research grant of Guerbet, France

Conflict of interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Bernhardt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walcher, T., Ikuye, K., Rottbauer, W. et al. Is contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T superior to 1.5 T for detection of coronary artery disease?. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 29, 355–361 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-012-0099-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-012-0099-0

Keywords

Navigation