Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for Evaluating Nonculprit Lesions After Myocardial Infarction: Comparison With Fractional Flow Reserve

H Everaars*, NW van der Hoeven, G.N. Janssens, M.A. van Leeuwen, RB van Loon, SP Schumacher, A Demirkiran, MBM Hofman, Rob J. van der Geest, PM van de Ven, MJW Gotte, AC van Rossum, N van Royen, R Nijveldt

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review


Objectives: This study sought to determine the agreement between cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging and invasive measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in the evaluation of nonculprit lesions after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In addition, we investigated whether fully quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion is superior to semiquantitative and visual analysis. Background: The agreement between CMR and FFR in the evaluation of nonculprit lesions in patients with STEMI with multivessel disease is unknown. Methods: Seventy-seven patients with STEMI with at least 1 intermediate (diameter stenosis 50% to 90%) nonculprit lesion underwent CMR and invasive coronary angiography in conjunction with FFR measurements at 1 month after primary intervention. The imaging protocol included stress and rest perfusion, cine imaging, and late gadolinium enhancement. Fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and visual analysis of myocardial perfusion were compared against a reference of FFR. Hemodynamically obstructive was defined as FFR ≤0.80. Results: Hemodynamically obstructive nonculprit lesions were present in 31 (40%) patients. Visual analysis displayed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 0.83), with a sensitivity of 73% and a specificity of 70%. For semiquantitative analysis, the relative upslope of the stress signal intensity time curve and the relative upslope derived myocardial flow reserve had respective AUCs of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.54 to 0.77) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.59 to 0.81). Fully quantitative analysis did not augment diagnostic performance (all p > 0.05). Stress myocardial blood flow displayed an AUC of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64 to 0.85), with a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 77%. Similarly, MFR displayed an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71 to 0.90), with a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 71%. Conclusions: CMR and FFR have moderate-good agreement in the evaluation of nonculprit lesions in patients with STEMI with multivessel disease. Fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and visual analysis yield similar diagnostic performance.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)715-728
Number of pages14
JournalJACC. Cardiovascular imaging
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2020

Cite this