Evidence mapPaperPMID 39382154Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging2025

Diagnostic performance of quantitative perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prior coronary artery disease.

Roel Hoek, Sonia Borodzicz-Jazdzyk, Pepijn A van Diemen, Yvemarie B O Somsen, Ruben W de Winter, Ruurt A Jukema, Jos W R Twisk, Pieter G Raijmakers, Juhani Knuuti, Teemu Maaniitty and 9 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Quantitative perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: same same but different.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025
    Article
  6. Myocardial perfusion imaging in advanced coronary artery disease.European journal of clinical investigation · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Roel HoekDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7927-0366
Sonia Borodzicz-JazdzykDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Pepijn A van DiemenDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Yvemarie B O SomsenDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Ruben W de WinterDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2199-5943
Ruurt A JukemaDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Jos W R TwiskDepartment of Epidemiology & Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pieter G RaijmakersDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Juhani KnuutiDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET and Turku PET Centre, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-3156-9593
Teemu MaaniittyDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET and Turku PET Centre, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-5819-4635
S Richard UnderwoodDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.
Eike NagelInstitute for Experimental and Translational Cardiovascular Imaging, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6044-950X
Lourens F H J RobbersDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Ahmet DemirkiranDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Martin B von BartheldDepartment of Cardiology, St Jansdal Hospital, Harderwijk, The Netherlands.
Roel S DriessenDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Ibrahim DanadDepartment of Cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marco J W GötteDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9713-3675
Paul KnaapenDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8038-7898

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe diagnostic performance of quantitative perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (QP-CMR) imaging has scarcely been evaluated in patients with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) and new onset chest pain. The present study compared the diagnostic performance of automated QP-CMR for the detection of fractional flow reserve (FFR) defined hemodynamically significant CAD with visual assessment of first-pass stress perfusion CMR (v-CMR) and quantitative [15O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in a true head-to-head fashion in patients with prior CAD. METHODS AND

resultsThis PACIFIC-2 substudy included 145 symptomatic chronic coronary symptom patients with prior myocardial infarction and/or percutaneous coronary intervention. All patients underwent dual-sequence, single-bolus perfusion CMR, and [15O]H2O PET perfusion imaging followed by invasive coronary angiography with three-vessel FFR. Hemodynamically significant CAD was defined as an FFR ≤ 0.80. QP-CMR, v-CMR, and PET exhibited a sensitivity of 66, 67, and 80%, respectively, whereas specificity was 60, 62, and 63%. Sensitivity of QP-CMR was lower than that of PET (P = 0.015), whereas the specificity of QP-CMR and PET was comparable. Diagnostic accuracy and area under the curve of QP-CMR (64% and 0.66) was comparable to both v-CMR [66% (P = not significant [NS]) and 0.67 (P = NS)] and PET [74% (P = NS) and 0.78 (P = NS)].

conclusionIn patients with prior myocardial infarction and/or percutaneous coronary intervention, the diagnostic performance of QP-CMR was comparable to visual assessment of first-pass stress perfusion CMR and quantitative [15O]H2O PET for the detection of hemodynamically significant CAD as defined by FFR.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseMagnetic Resonance Imaging, CineMyocardial Perfusion ImagingAgedCoronary AngiographyFemaleFractional Flow Reserve, MyocardialHumansMaleMiddle AgedPositron-Emission TomographySensitivity and Specificityfractional flow reservemyocardial perfusion imagingpositron emission tomographyquantitative perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID39382154
PMCPMC11781829

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.