Myocardial Perfusion CMR in Ischaemic Heart Disease
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Comparison of the accuracy of Two-dimensional myocardial perfusion CMR with Three-dimensional myocardial perfusion CMR in the detection of significant coronary artery disease and in the quantification of ischaemic burden.
IRAS ID
182616
Contact name
Sven Plein
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
King's College London
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 4 months, 28 days
Research summary
Coronary artery disease is a condition where blockages develop in the arteries that supply blood to the heart called the coronary arteries. If these blockages significantly reduce blood supply to the heart, patients can develop chest pain exertional breathlessness, or a heart attack. The best way to detect these blockages is by performing a procedure called coronary angiography. In borderline cases, if there is uncertainty as to whether the narrowing significantly reduces blood supply or not, this can be confirmed by passing a special wire past the blockage and measuring the pressure difference across the blockage, also known as a pressure wire study.
Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) imaging is a non-invasive imaging technique that can also detect significant CAD. This can be done using either Two- dimensional (2D), or more recently three- dimensional (3D) perfusion CMR imaging. 2D perfusion imaging looks at blood flow to the heart in typically only three slices through the heart whereas 3D perfusion CMR imaging has the advantage of being able to look at the heart in its entirety (‘whole heart’). 3D perfusion CMR therefore has the potential to be more accurate in detecting significant CAD and estimating ischaemic burden on an individual basis than 2D perfusion imaging. However, in previous separate studies, the accuracy of both techniques has been comparable to coronary angiography and pressure wire studies.
Our study aims to establish whether 3D perfusion CMR imaging is superior to 2D perfusion CMR imaging in its ability to detect significant coronary artery disease and estimate disease burden. Unlike previous studies, we propose to perform both methods in the same patients in a direct head to head comparison.REC name
North West - Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
15/NW/0778
Date of REC Opinion
12 Nov 2015
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion