Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Jan 2024)

Comparison of dual-bolus versus dual-sequence techniques for determining myocardial blood flow and myocardial perfusion reserve by cardiac magnetic resonance stress perfusion: From the Automated Quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion cardiac Magnetic Resonance Consortium

  • Emily Yin Sing Chong,
  • Haonan Wang,
  • Kwan Ho Gordon Leung,
  • Paul Kim,
  • Yuko Tada,
  • Tsun Hei Sin,
  • Chun Ka Wong,
  • Kwong Yue Eric Chan,
  • Chor Cheung Frankie Tam,
  • Mitchel Benovoy,
  • Andrew E. Arai,
  • Victor Goh,
  • Martin A. Janich,
  • Amit R. Patel,
  • Ming-Yen Ng

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 26, no. 2
p. 101085

Abstract

Read online

ABSTRACT: Background: Quantitative stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can be performed using the dual-sequence (DS) technique or dual-bolus (DB) method. It is unknown if DS and DB produce similar results for myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR). The study objective is to investigate if there are any differences between DB- and DS-derived MBF and MPR. Methods: Retrospective observational study with 168 patients who underwent stress CMR. DB and DS methods were simultaneously performed on each patient on the same day. Global and segmental stress MBF and rest MBF values were collected. Results: Using Bland-Altman analysis, segmental and global stress MBF values were higher in DB than DS (0.22 ± 0.60 mL/g/min, p < 0.001 and 0.20 ± 0.48 mL/g/min, p = 0.005, respectively) with strong correlation (r = 0.81, p < 0.001 for segmental and r = 0.82, p < 0.001 for global). In rest MBF, segmental and global DB values were higher than by DS (0.15 ± 0.51 mL/g/min, p < 0.001 and 0.14 ± 0.36 mL/g/min, p = 0.011, respectively) with strong correlation (r = 0.81, p < 0.001 and r = 0.77, p < 0.001). Mean difference between MPR by DB and DS was −0.02 ± 0.68 mL/g/min (p = 0.758) for segmental values and −0.01 ± 0.49 mL/g/min (p = 0.773) for global values. MPR values correlated strongly as well in both segmental and global, both (r = 0.74, p < 0.001) and (r = 0.75, p < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion: There is a very good correlation between DB- and DS-derived MBF and MPR values. However, there are significant differences between DB- and DS-derived global stress and rest MBF. While MPR values did not show statistically significant differences between DB and DS methods.

Keywords