Quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging identifies reduced flow reserve in microvascular coronary artery disease

Benjamin Zorach, Peter W Shaw, Jamieson Bourque, Sujith Kuruvilla, Pelbreton C Balfour Jr, Yang Yang, Roshin Mathew, Jonathan Pan, Jorge A Gonzalez, Angela M Taylor, Craig H Meyer, Frederick H Epstein, Christopher M Kramer, Michael Salerno, Benjamin Zorach, Peter W Shaw, Jamieson Bourque, Sujith Kuruvilla, Pelbreton C Balfour Jr, Yang Yang, Roshin Mathew, Jonathan Pan, Jorge A Gonzalez, Angela M Taylor, Craig H Meyer, Frederick H Epstein, Christopher M Kramer, Michael Salerno

Abstract

Background: Preliminary semi-quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion studies have demonstrated reduced myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) in patients with angina and risk factors for microvascular disease (MVD), however fully quantitative CMR has not been studied. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether fully quantitative CMR identifies reduced MPR in this population, and to investigate the relationship between epicardial atherosclerosis, left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), extracellular volume (ECV), and perfusion.

Methods: Forty-six patients with typical angina and risk factors for MVD (females, or males with diabetes or metabolic syndrome) who had no obstructive coronary artery disease by coronary angiography and 20 healthy control subjects underwent regadenoson stress CMR perfusion imaging using a dual-sequence quantitative spiral pulse sequence to quantify MPR. Subjects also underwent T1 mapping to quantify ECV, and computed tomographic (CT) coronary calcium scoring to assess atherosclerosis burden.

Results: In patients with risk factors for MVD, both MPR (2.21 [1.95,2.69] vs. 2.93 [2.763.19], p < 0.001) and stress myocardial perfusion (2.65 ± 0.62 ml/min/g, vs. 3.17 ± 0.49 ml/min/g p < 0.002) were reduced as compared to controls. These differences remained after adjusting for age, left ventricular (LV) mass, body mass index (BMI), and gender. There were no differences in native T1 or ECV between subjects and controls.

Conclusions: Stress myocardial perfusion and MPR as measured by fully quantitative CMR perfusion imaging are reduced in subjects with risk factors for MVD with no obstructive CAD as compared to healthy controls. Neither myocardial hypertrophy nor fibrosis accounts for these differences.

Keywords: Angina; Cardiovascular magnetic resonance; Diabetes; Metabolic syndrome; Microvascular disease; Myocardial perfusion reserve; Non-obstructive coronary artery disease; Women.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All patients provided written informed consent on a protocol (#16056) approved by our local institutional review board (IRB).

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

MS receives grant support from Astra Zeneca and is a consultant to IBM. CK is a consultant for Bayer and IBM, and has research support from Novartis, and JB receives grant support from Astellas. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Stress and Rest Absolute Perfusion Quantification. Comparison of absolute stress flow values of mid-ventricular short axis slice. Left column: Pixel based flow map. Top Row: Patient with microvascular disease (MVD). Bottom Row: Control subject
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of Stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR). Box and whisker plots representing stress MBF (a) and MPR (b), between study patients and controls. Stress MBF and MPR were lower in study patients by statistically significant values, p < 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively. The + sign indicates the mean of each patient group

References

    1. Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, Cushman M, et al. Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics--2016 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2016;133:447–454. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000366.
    1. Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, Brennan JM, Redberg RF, Anderson HV, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:886–895. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907272.
    1. Marzilli M, Merz CN, Boden WE, Bonow RO, Capozza PG, Chilian WM, et al. Obstructive coronary atherosclerosis and ischemic heart disease: an elusive link! J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:951–956. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.02.082.
    1. Lanza GA, Crea F. Primary coronary microvascular dysfunction: clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and management. Circulation. 2010;121:2317–2325. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.900191.
    1. Crea F, Camici PG, Bairey Merz CN. Coronary microvascular dysfunction: an update. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:1101–1111. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht513.
    1. Pepine CJ, Anderson RD, Sharaf BL, Reis SE, Smith KM, Handberg EM, et al. Coronary microvascular reactivity to adenosine predicts adverse outcome in women evaluated for suspected ischemia results from the National Heart, lung and blood institute WISE (Women's ischemia syndrome evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2825–2832. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.01.054.
    1. Taqueti VR, Shaw LJ, Cook NR, Murthy VL, Shah NR, Foster CR, et al. Excess cardiovascular risk in women relative to men referred for coronary angiography is associated with severely impaired coronary flow reserve, Not Obstructive Disease. Circulation. 2017;135:566–577. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.023266.
    1. Reis SE, Holubkov R, Conrad Smith AJ, Kelsey SF, Sharaf BL, Reichek N, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction is highly prevalent in women with chest pain in the absence of coronary artery disease: results from the NHLBI WISE study. Am Heart J. 2001;141:735–741. doi: 10.1067/mhj.2001.114198.
    1. Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Hainer J, Gaber M, Di Carli G, et al. Association between coronary vascular dysfunction and cardiac mortality in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2012;126:1858–1868. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.120402.
    1. Di Carli MF, Charytan D, McMahon GT, Ganz P, Dorbala S, Schelbert HR. Coronary circulatory function in patients with the metabolic syndrome. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1369–1377. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.110.082883.
    1. Graf S, Khorsand A, Gwechenberger M, Novotny C, Kletter K, Sochor H, et al. Typical chest pain and normal coronary angiogram: cardiac risk factor analysis versus PET for detection of microvascular disease. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:175–181.
    1. Bairey Merz CN, Pepine CJ, Walsh MN, Fleg JL. Ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA): developing evidence-based therapies and research agenda for the next decade. Circulation. 2017;135:1075–1092. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.024534.
    1. Patel AR, Antkowiak PF, Nandalur KR, West AM, Salerno M, Arora V, et al. Assessment of advanced coronary artery disease: advantages of quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:561–569. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.02.061.
    1. Jerosch-Herold M. Quantification of myocardial perfusion by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2010;12:57. doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-12-57.
    1. Vasu S, Bandettini WP, Hsu L, Kellman P, Wilson J, Leung S, et al. Optimal timing of rest perfusion with regadenoson stress testing – normal volunteer study of quantitative MRI perfusion. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011;13(Suppl 1):P128. doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-13-S1-P128.
    1. Bhave NM, Freed BH, Chattanong Y, Kolanczyk D, Dill K, Lang RM, et al. Considerations when measuring myocardial perfusion reserve by cardiovascular magnetic resonance using regadenoson. J of Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:89. doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-14-89.
    1. Yang Y, Kuruvilla S, Meyer CH, Kramer CM, Salerno M. Quantification of myocardial perfusion with spiral pulse sequences. J of Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15(Suppl 1):E12. doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-15-S1-E12.
    1. Yang Y, Kuruvilla S, Meyer CH, Epstein FH, Taylor AM, Kramer CM, et al. High-resolution quantitative spiral perfusion for microvascular coronary dysfunction detection. J of Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014;16(Suppl 1):P227. doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-16-S1-P227.
    1. Salerno M, Taylor A, Yang Y, Kuruvilla S, Ragosta M, Meyer CH, et al. Adenosine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance with variable-density spiral pulse sequences accurately detects coronary artery disease: initial clinical evaluation. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:639–646. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.113.001584.
    1. Schulz-Menger J, Bluemke DA, Bremerich J, Flamm SD, Fogel MA, Friedrich MG, et al. Standardized image interpretation and post processing in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) board of trustees task force on standardized post processing. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15:35. doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-15-35.
    1. Lustig M, Pauly JM. SPIRiT: iterative self-consistent parallel imaging reconstruction from arbitrary k-space. Magn Reson Med. 2010;64:457–471.
    1. Avants BB, Tustison NJ, Song G, Cook PA, Klein A, Gee JC. A reproducible evaluation of ANTs similarity metric performance in brain image registration. NeuroImage. 2011;54:2033–2044. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.09.025.
    1. Axel L. Tissue mean transit time from dynamic computed tomography by a simple deconvolution technique. Investig Radiol. 1983;18:94–99. doi: 10.1097/00004424-198301000-00018.
    1. Naresh NK, Butcher JT, Lye RJ, Chen X, Isakson BE, Gan LM, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance detects the progression of impaired myocardial perfusion reserve and increased left-ventricular mass in mice fed a high-fat diet. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;18:53. doi: 10.1186/s12968-016-0273-y.
    1. Costa MA, Shoemaker S, Futamatsu H, Klassen C, Angiolillo DJ, Nguyen M, et al. Quantitative magnetic resonance perfusion imaging detects anatomic and physiologic coronary artery disease as measured by coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:514–522. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.04.053.
    1. Mordini FE, Haddad T, Hsu LY, Kellman P, Lowrey TB, Aletras AH, 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2013.08.014.
    1. Morton G, Chiribiri A, Ishida M, Hussain ST, Schuster A, Indermuehle A, 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;60:1546–1555. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.05.052.
    1. Wohrle J, Nusser T, Merkle N, Kestler HA, Grebe OC, Marx N, et al. Myocardial perfusion reserve in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: correlation to coronary microvascular dysfunction. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2006;8:781–787. doi: 10.1080/10976640600737649.
    1. Thomson LE, Wei J, Agarwal M, Haft-Baradaran A, Shufelt C, Mehta PK, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion reserve index is reduced in women with coronary microvascular dysfunction. A National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored study from the Women's ischemia syndrome evaluation. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.114.002481.
    1. Shufelt CL, Thomson LE, Goykhman P, Agarwal M, Mehta PK, Sedlak T, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging myocardial perfusion reserve index assessment in women with microvascular coronary dysfunction and reference controls. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2013;3:153–160.
    1. Mygind ND, Michelsen MM, Pena A, Qayyum AA, Frestad D, Christensen TE, et al. Coronary microvascular function and myocardial fibrosis in women with angina pectoris and no obstructive coronary artery disease: the iPOWER study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;18:76. doi: 10.1186/s12968-016-0295-5.
    1. Manabe O, Yoshinaga K, Katoh C, Naya M, deKemp RA, Tamaki N. Repeatability of rest and hyperemic myocardial blood flow measurements with 82Rb dynamic PET. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:68–71. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.055673.

Source: PubMed

Подписаться