Open AccessStress perfusion CMR – a report of an initial Romanian experience
Author(s) -
Sebastian Onciul,
Oana Popa,
Radu George Nicolaescu,
Влад Батайла,
Lucian Câlmâc,
Mihai Craiu,
M. Marinescu,
Radu Dan Andrei,
Alexandru Deaconu,
Стефан Богдан,
Raluca Ciomag,
Nicoleta-Monica Popa-Fotea,
Sorin Popescu,
S Radu,
Claudia Nica,
Bogdan Baciu,
Oana Gheorghe Fronea,
Maria Florescu,
Radu Andy Sascău,
Cristian Stătescu,
Alexandru Udriste Scafa,
Maria Dorobanțu,
Răzvan Alexandru Capşa
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
romanian journal of cardiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2734-6382
pISSN - 1220-658X
DOI - 10.47803/rjc.2021.31.1.52
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiology , coronary artery disease , dipyridamole , myocardial infarction , revascularization , perfusion , scars , radiology , surgery
Objectives – To provide preliminary data on practice of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in a single center in Romania. Methods – We retrospectively reviewed the clinical files and CMR reports of patients who underwent stress perfusion CMR in our institution between January 2018 and December 2020. Results – A total of 1036 patients underwent CMR examinations during this period in our institution. Of these, 120 patients had stress perfusion CMR. The most common indication was the assessment of myocardial ischaemia in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) (77 patients, 64.16%), with either a history of myocardial infarction or previous coronary revascularization, or with intermediate lesions on invasive coronary angiography (ICA). The other indications consisted in detection of ischaemia in patients with suspected CAD (36 patients, 30%), characterization of the substrate of ventricular arrhythmia (5 patients, 4.16%) and assessment of the etiology of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) (4 patients, 3.33%). All patients had vasodilator stress with adenosine and an adequate stress response was obtained in 113 patients (94.16%). There were 21 patients (18.58%) with an abnormal stress test and patients with intermediate lesions on ICA had the highest prevalence of positive reports (24.32%). Sixty-three patients had myocardial fibrosis (52.5%): 49 patients (40.83%) had subendocardial (ischaemic) scars, while 14 patients (11.66%) had non-ischaemic scars. There were no serious adverse events related to the procedure. Conclusions – This is the first report in Romania on the use of stress perfusion CMR in clinical practice. We report our experience on stress efficiency, acquisition protocol, artifacts, prevalence of positive tests and safety. Most stress CMRs were requested in patients with established CAD.