EXPEDITED PUBLICATION: EDITORIAL COMMENT
Will 3.0-T Make Coronary Magnetic Resonance Angiography Competitive With Computed Tomography Angiography?*
Christopher T. Sibley, MD and
David A. Bluemke, MD, PhD ,*
Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health/Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. David A. Bluemke, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive, Room 10/1C355, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Email: bluemked{at}nih.gov).
Key Words: coronary disease • magnetic resonance imaging • contrast media • 3 Tesla
Noninvasive coronary angiography requires the ability to image structures as small as 1.5 mm, enveloped in tissue of quite similar composition, and rapidly moving in 3 dimensions within the body. Inaccuracies of measurements on the order of a few hundred microns make the difference between accurate diagnosis of a clinically significant lesion and a false test result. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) currently offer the potential to overcome these challenges in the pursuit of noninvasive assessment of coronary disease. A direct comparison of the 2 modalities to date has shown the current generation of 64-slice multidetector CT to provide more accurate coronary imaging (1,2), albeit at the cost of significant radiation exposure to the patient (3). Long scan times and operator dependency have also challenged the efficiency of MRI. The promise of performing noninvasive angiography free of ionizing radiation has provided a strong and ongoing stimulus to close this gap between MRI and CT. Improvements in parallel processing, multichannel receiver coils, and the increasingly wide availability of 3.0-T MRI have each shown promise toward this end.
A doubling in the strength of the MRI field from 1.5- to 3.0-T theoretically translates into a doubling of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) obtained (4). In practice, the obtainable increase in SNR is on the order of 30% (5). This increase in SNR, in the currency of MRI, can subsequently be exchanged for improvements in temporal resolution, spatial resolution, or scan time. The demands of coronary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) place each of these at a premium. Increased field strength, however, has notable drawbacks. All MR fields are inhomogeneous to some degree. Inhomogeneity results in imaging artifacts, and these artifacts become more pronounced in stronger magnetic fields (6). Stronger fields can also result in greater energy absorption by body tissues, limiting the utility of certain imaging sequences.
Much of the recent effort in MRA has focused on use of the newest steady-state free procession (SSFP) sequences (7). SSFP, however, is particularly susceptible to the artifacts generated at greater magnetic fields. A spoiled gradient echo technique, fast low-angle shot (i.e., FLASH), first described >20 years ago (8), has recently shown promise in overcoming these difficulties, with better image quality at 3.0-T compared with the use of SSFP (9).
In this issue of the Journal, Yang et al. (10) report the results of a single-center, prospective trial comparing the accuracy of 3.0-T whole-heart coronary MRA with conventional quantitative coronary angiography in a population with suspected coronary artery disease. They performed whole-heart coronary MRA with the use of FLASH sequences at 3.0-T, with a 9-min mean scan time. Yang et al. (10) also achieved a 50% reduction of scanning time compared with previously published reports with comparable diagnostic accuracy.
The diagnostic accuracy of the coronary MRA technique to detect a patient with a >50% stenosis demonstrated a sensitivity of 88.7%, a specificity of 82.1%, a positive predictive value of 86.5%, and a negative predictive value of 92%. These results are tempered by an inability to image more than one third of the participants (34 of 96) because of either the patient's ineligibility for MRI or an unsuccessful attempt at scanning. A total of 12% of segments in scanned patients could not be assessed, although 98% of proximal segments were readable. The lack of ability of MRA to image all coronary arteries in all patients remains a consistent theme. Although this problem is a solvable one, manufacturers of MR equipment have not resolved this issue. As a result, coronary MRA is currently deployed only at specialized academic centers.
The results obtained in the present study compare favorably with other single-center studies of whole-heart coronary MRA at 1.5-T (1,11,12). These results are also quite similar to the recent experience with 64-slice multidetector CT angiography in both single- and multicenter studies with similar prevalence (i.e.,  55%, of true coronary disease [13,14]), although far fewer patients were excluded or scan failures in the CT studies.
Correlation with invasive angiography is a necessary initial comparative step for any new noninvasive technique. There is yet a large gap to be closed between catheterization and even the most accurate CT or MR approach, and it is unlikely that this gap will be closed in the foreseeable future. For the present, it is the high negative predictive value of noninvasive angiography that drives its potential clinical utility, particularly in permitting the exclusion of high-grade stenosis in proximal vessels. Even using the gold standard invasive approach, however, mere luminal stenosis has limited prognostic potential (15). There is little reason to believe that a simple lumenographic approach will meet the standards of the current focus on outcomes benefit for imaging studies (16).
A greater potential for noninvasive angiography lies in the ability to assess the burden of atherosclerotic disease in the vessel wall itself, rather than the degree of stenosis imposed by that disease (17). The use of noninvasive techniques to assess atheroma burden and plaque composition in this manner, although promising in early applications, merits rigorous evaluation for diagnostic and prognostic potential. We look forward to application of techniques like that described here by Yang et al. (10) toward this end.
 |
Footnotes
|
|---|
* Editorials published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of JACC or the American College of Cardiology. 
|
References
|
|---|
1. Pouleur A-C, le Polain de Waroux J-B, Kefer J, et al. Direct comparison of whole-heart navigator-gated magnetic resonance coronary angiography and 40- and 64-slice multidetector row computed tomography to detect the coronary artery stenosis in patients scheduled for conventional coronary angiography Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2008;1:114-121.[Abstract/Free Full Text]2. Maintz D, Ozqun M, Hoffmeier A, et al. Whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography: value for the detection of coronary artery stenoses in comparison to multislice computed tomography angiography Acta Radiol 2007;48:967-973.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 3. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography JAMA 2007;298:317-323.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 4. Wen H, Denison TJ, Singerman RW, Balaban RS. The intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio in human cardiac imaging at 1.5, 3, and 4 T J Magn Reson 1997;125:65-71.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 5. Sommer T, Hackenbroch M, Hofer U, et al. Coronary MR angiography at 3.0 T versus that at 1.5 T: initial results in patients suspected of having coronary artery disease Radiology 2005;234:718-725.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 6. Wansapura J, Fleck R, Crotty W, Gottliebson W. Frequency scouting for cardiac imaging with SSFP at 3 Tesla Pediatr Radiol 2006;36:1082-1085.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 7. McCarthy RM, Desphande VS, Beohar N, et al. Three-dimensional breathhold magnetization-prepared TrueFISP: a pilot study for magnetic resonance imaging of the coronary artery disease Invest Radiol 2007;42:665-670.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 8. Matthaei D, Fraahm J, Haase A, Hänicke W. Regional physiological functions depicted by sequences of rapid magnetic resonance images Lancet 1985;326:893.[CrossRef] 9. Liu X, Bi X, Huang J, Jerecic R, Carr J, Li D. Contrast-enhanced whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0 T: comparison with steady-state free precession technique at 1.5 T Invest Radiol 2008;43:663-668.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 10. Yang Q, Li K, Liu X, et al. Contrast-enhanced whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0-T: a comparative study with X-ray angiography in a single center J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:69-76.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 11. Jahnke C, Paetsch I, Nehrke K, et al. Rapid and complete coronary arterial tree visualization with magnetic resonance imaging: feasibility and diagnostic performance Eur Heart J 2005;26:2313-2319.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 12. Sakuma H, Ichikawa Y, Chino S, Hirano T, Makino K, Takeda K. Detection of coronary artery stenosis with whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:1946-1950.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 13. Raff GL, Gallagher MJ, O'Neill WW, Goldstein JA. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:552-557.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 14. Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT N Engl J Med 2008;359:2324-2336.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 15. Little WC, Constantinescu M, Applegate RJ, et al. Can coronary angiography predict the site of a subsequent myocardial infarction in patients with mild-to-moderate coronary artery disease? Circulation 1988;78:1157-1166.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 16. Lauer MS. Discarding logic: 2008 Ancel Keys memorial lecture Circulation 2009;119:1533-1537.[Free Full Text] 17. Macedo R, Chen S, Lai S, et al. MRI detects increased coronary wall thickness in asymptomatic individuals: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28:1108-1115.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Related Article
-
Contrast-Enhanced Whole-Heart Coronary Magnetic Resonance Angiography at 3.0-T: A Comparative Study With X-Ray Angiography in a Single Center
- Qi Yang, Kuncheng Li, Xin Liu, Xiaoming Bi, Zhi Liu, Jing An, Al Zhang, Renate Jerecic, and Debiao Li
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2009 54: 69-76.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
V. R. S. Fernandes and J. A. C. Lima
Functional Coronary Imaging with Magnetic Resonance: A "Renaissance"?
Radiology,
December 1, 2011;
261(3):
685 - 687.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Sakuma
Coronary CT versus MR Angiography: The Role of MR Angiography
Radiology,
February 1, 2011;
258(2):
340 - 349.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. N. DeMaria, J. J. Bax, O. Ben-Yehuda, G. K. Feld, B. H. Greenberg, J. Hall, M. Hlatky, W. Y.W. Lew, J. A.C. Lima, A. S. Maisel, et al.
Highlights of the Year in JACC 2009
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
January 26, 2010;
55(4):
380 - 407.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
Top
References