Sex- and age-specific normal values for automated quantitative pixel-wise myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

AIMS: Recently developed in-line automated cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) myocardial perfusion mapping has been shown to be reproducible and comparable with positron emission tomography (PET), and can be easily integrated into clinical workflows. Bringing quantitative myocardial perfusion CMR into routine clinical care requires knowledge of sex- and age-specific normal values in order to define thresholds for disease detection. This study aimed to establish sex- and age-specific normal values for stress and rest CMR myocardial blood flow (MBF) in healthy volunteers. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 151 healthy volunteers recruited from two centres underwent adenosine stress and rest myocardial perfusion CMR. In-line automatic reconstruction and post processing of perfusion data were implemented within the Gadgetron software framework, creating pixel-wise perfusion maps. Rest and stress MBF were measured, deriving myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) and were subdivided by sex and age. Mean MBF in all subjects was 0.62 ± 0.13 mL/g/min at rest and 2.24 ± 0.53 mL/g/min during stress. Mean MPR was 3.74 ± 1.00. Compared with males, females had higher rest (0.69 ± 0.13 vs. 0.58 ± 0.12 mL/g/min, P < 0.01) and stress MBF (2.41 ± 0.47 vs. 2.13 ± 0.54 mL/g/min, P = 0.001). Stress MBF and MPR showed significant negative correlations with increasing age (r = -0.43, P < 0.001 and r = -0.34, P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Fully automated in-line CMR myocardial perfusion mapping produces similar normal values to the published CMR and PET literature. There is a significant increase in rest and stress MBF, but not MPR, in females and a reduction of stress MBF and MPR with advancing age, advocating the use of sex- and age-specific reference ranges for diagnostic use.

Fully automated, inline quantification of myocardial blood flow with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: repeatability of measurements in healthy subjects.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive assessment of myocardial ischaemia is a cornerstone of the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Measurement of myocardial blood flow (MBF) using positron emission tomography (PET) is the current reference standard for non-invasive quantification of myocardial ischaemia. Dynamic myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) offers an alternative to PET and a recently developed method with automated inline perfusion mapping has shown good correlation of MBF values between CMR and PET. This study assessed the repeatability of myocardial perfusion mapping by CMR in healthy subjects. METHODS: Forty-two healthy subjects were recruited and underwent adenosine stress and rest perfusion CMR on two visits. Scans were repeated with a minimum interval of 7 days. Intrastudy rest and stress MBF repeatability were assessed with a 15-min interval between acquisitions. Interstudy rest and stress MBF and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) were measured for global myocardium and regionally for coronary territories and slices. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in intrastudy repeated global rest MBF (0.65 ± 0.13 ml/g/min vs 0.62 ± 0.12 ml/g/min, p = 0.24, repeatability coefficient (RC) =24%) or stress (2.89 ± 0.56 ml/g/min vs 2.83 ± 0.64 ml/g/min, p = 0.41, RC = 29%) MBF. No significant difference was seen in interstudy repeatability for global rest MBF (0.64 ± 0.13 ml/g/min vs 0.64 ± 0.15 ml/g/min, p = 0.80, RC = 32%), stress MBF (2.71 ± 0.61 ml/g/min vs 2.55 ± 0.57 ml/g/min, p = 0.12, RC = 33%) or MPR (4.24 ± 0.69 vs 3.73 ± 0.76, p = 0.25, RC = 36%). Regional repeatability was good for stress (RC = 30-37%) and rest MBF (RC = 32-36%) but poorer for MPR (RC = 35-43%). Within subject coefficient of variation was 8% for rest and 11% for stress within the same study, and 11% for rest and 12% for stress between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Fully automated, inline, myocardial perfusion mapping by CMR shows good repeatability that is similar to the published PET literature. Both rest and stress MBF show better repeatability than MPR, particularly in regional analysis.