Background To evaluate the accuracy of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and imaging stress test in predicting significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Methods We enrolled 187 consecutive out-patients (61 ± 17 years) with new evidence of depressed (< 45%) ejection fraction and no history of previous heart diseases and absence of Q-waves. All patients underwent coronary angiography (CA) and to LGE-CMR examination to identify ischemic and non-ischemic LGE. All patients underwent stress imaging to determine the presence of myocardial ischemia. Results Ischemic-LGE was found in 83 patients and non-ischemic-LGE in 104. Significant CAD on CA was found in 86/187 patients. Ischemic-LGE showed a specificity of 94%, a sensitivity of 89% and an accuracy of 92% in identifying significant CAD. Imaging stress test was negative in 98/105 patients without CAD, and positive in 42/82 with significant CAD, showing a specificity of 93%, a sensitivity of 51% and an accuracy of 75% in identifying CAD. Combining CMR and stress test imaging, 94 patients had ischemic-LGE pattern and/or positive stress test for ischemia; of these 81/94 had significant CAD on CA and 13 had no CAD. Among the 93 patients with both tests negative, significant CAD was found in 5/93 patients. The combination of LGE and stress respect to only LGE did not improve the diagnostic accuracy (90 vs 92% respectively). Conclusion LGE-CMR had high accuracy in predicting significant CAD in ischemic LV dysfunction or as a bystander in non ischemic dysfunction.
Usefulness of late gadolinium enhancement MRI combined with stress imaging in predictive significant coronary stenosis in new-diagnosed left ventricular dysfunction
PIAGGI, PAOLO;PIZZINO, FAUSTO;BARISON, ANDREA;EMDIN, MICHELE;
2016-01-01
Abstract
Background To evaluate the accuracy of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and imaging stress test in predicting significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Methods We enrolled 187 consecutive out-patients (61 ± 17 years) with new evidence of depressed (< 45%) ejection fraction and no history of previous heart diseases and absence of Q-waves. All patients underwent coronary angiography (CA) and to LGE-CMR examination to identify ischemic and non-ischemic LGE. All patients underwent stress imaging to determine the presence of myocardial ischemia. Results Ischemic-LGE was found in 83 patients and non-ischemic-LGE in 104. Significant CAD on CA was found in 86/187 patients. Ischemic-LGE showed a specificity of 94%, a sensitivity of 89% and an accuracy of 92% in identifying significant CAD. Imaging stress test was negative in 98/105 patients without CAD, and positive in 42/82 with significant CAD, showing a specificity of 93%, a sensitivity of 51% and an accuracy of 75% in identifying CAD. Combining CMR and stress test imaging, 94 patients had ischemic-LGE pattern and/or positive stress test for ischemia; of these 81/94 had significant CAD on CA and 13 had no CAD. Among the 93 patients with both tests negative, significant CAD was found in 5/93 patients. The combination of LGE and stress respect to only LGE did not improve the diagnostic accuracy (90 vs 92% respectively). Conclusion LGE-CMR had high accuracy in predicting significant CAD in ischemic LV dysfunction or as a bystander in non ischemic dysfunction.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.