Measurement of myocardial blood flow in atrial fibrillation using high-resolution, free-breathing in-line quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Background: Stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in the presence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has long been challenging due to electrocardiogram (ECG) mis-triggering. However, non-invasive ischemia imaging is important due to an increased risk of myocardial infarction in patients...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Richard J. Crawley, Karl-Philipp Kunze, Anmol Kaushal, Xenios Milidonis, Jack Highton, Blanca Domenech-Ximenos, Irum D. Kotadia, Can Karamanli, Nathan C.K. Wong, Robbie Murphy, Ebraham Alskaf, Radhouene Neji, Mark O’Neill, Steven E. Williams, Cian M. Scannell, Sven Plein, Amedeo Chiribiri
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2025-01-01
Series:Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1097664725000791
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: Stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in the presence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has long been challenging due to electrocardiogram (ECG) mis-triggering. However, non-invasive ischemia imaging is important due to an increased risk of myocardial infarction in patients with AF, which has been attributed to underlying microvascular dysfunction. Myocardial blood flow (MBF) in patients with AF is poorly understood, and few studies have attempted to quantify this through non-invasive imaging. Methods: Patients were recruited for stress perfusion CMR using a research sequence at 3-Tesla. Image acquisition occurred during both vasodilator-induced hyperemia and at rest. Stress and rest MBF maps were automatically generated. Analysis of perfusion maps included assessment of myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) and endocardial-to-epicardial MBF ratios. Results: Around 442 patients were analyzed; 63 of whom had a history of AF and were in AF during the scan. Both MBF during hyperemia (stress MBF) and MPR were reduced in patients with AF compared to those in sinus rhythm (median stress MBF 1.85 [1.52–2.24] vs. 2.35 [1.98–2.77] mL/min/g, p<0.001; median MPR 1.95 [1.62–2.19] vs. 2.37 [2.05–2.80], p<0.001). No significant difference was seen between the two groups at rest (p=0.451). When considering co-factors affecting MBF, multivariate linear regression analysis identified the presence of AF as a significant independent contributor to stress MBF and MPR values. Both endocardial and epicardial stress MBF and MPR were reduced in AF compared with sinus rhythm (both p<0.001) and endocardial/epicardial ratios were similar between the groups. Conclusion: Automated quantitative MBF assessment can be performed in patients with AF. At hyperemia, MBF is reduced in AF compared to sinus rhythm.
ISSN:1097-6647