4.5 Article

Fusion of MR coronary angiography and viability imaging: Feasibility and clinical value for the assignment of myocardial infarctions

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 81, Issue 1, Pages 71-76

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.12.005

Keywords

Cardiac MRI; CAD; Coronary arteries; Myocardial infarction; Image fusion

Funding

  1. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) [VICORA 01EZ0401/TU]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To investigate the feasibility of image fusion of MR-coronary angiography (MRCA) and delayed gadolinium enhancement imaging (LGE) and to assign areas of myocardial infarction to the corresponding supplying coronary arteries. Materials and methods: An interactive segmentation of the coronary arteries was performed in MRCA data sets (n = 25). The LGE slices were matched onto the vessel segmentation to perform a fused analysis of coronary artery anatomy and LGE. The results were compared to the segmental model recommended by the American Heart Association (AHA). Standard of reference was the identification of the culprit lesion in the invasive coronary angiography (CA) (n = 20). Results: The fused analysis allowed the assignment of MI to the supplying coronary artery in 13/20 patients. The sensitivities/specificities for the assignment of MI to the three main vessels were: LAD 63%/100%, LCX 75%/100%, and RCA 56%/100%, respectively. Using the AHA segmental model the sensitivities/specificities for the correct assignment of MI to the three main vessels were: LAD 88%/58%, LCX 94%/75%, and RCA 77%/73%, respectively. Conclusion: Fusion images of MRCA and LGE provides added diagnostic information in the effort to determine the epicardial vessels responsible for the postischemic myocardial injury and therefore might be helpful to establish appropriate future therapeutic steps. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available