Stress cardiac MR imaging compared with stress echocardiography in the early evaluation of patients who present to the emergency department with intermediate-risk chest pain

John F. Heitner, Igor Klem, Derek Rasheed, Abhinav Chandra, Han W. Kim, Lowie M.R. Van Assche, Michele Parker, Robert M. Judd, James G. Jollis, Raymond J. Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the utility and efficacy of stress cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and stress echocardiography in an emergency setting in patients with acute chest pain (CP) and intermediate risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). Material and Methods: Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the institutional review board for research ethics. Sixty patients without history of CAD presented to the emergency department with intermediate-risk acute CP and were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent both stress cardiac MR imaging and stress echocardiography in random order within 12 hours of presentation. Stress imaging results were interpreted clinically immediately (blinded interpretation was performed months later), and coronary angiography was performed if either result was abnormal. CAD was considered significant if it was identified at angiography (narrowing >50% ) or if a cardiac event (death or myocardial infarction) occurred during follow-up (mean, 14 months ± 5 [standard deviation]). McNemar test was used to compare the diagnostic accuracy of techniques. Results: Stress cardiac MR imaging and stress echocardiography had similar specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values (92% vs 96%, 93% vs 88%, 67% vs 60%, and 100% vs 91%, respectively, for clinical interpretation; 90% vs 92%, 90% vs 88%, 58% vs 56%, and 98% vs 94%, respectively, for blinded interpretation). Stress cardiac MR imaging had higher sensitivity at clinical interpretation (100% vs 38%, P = .025), which did not reach significance at blinded interpretation (88% vs 63%, P = .31). However, multivariable logistic regression analysis showed stress cardiac MR imaging to be the strongest independent predictor of significant CAD (P = .002). Conclusion: In patients presenting to the emergency department with intermediate-risk CP, adenosine stress cardiac MR imaging performed within 12 hours of presentation is safe and potentially has improved performance characteristics compared with stress echocardiography.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)56-64
Number of pages9
JournalRadiology
Volume271
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2014

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Stress cardiac MR imaging compared with stress echocardiography in the early evaluation of patients who present to the emergency department with intermediate-risk chest pain'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Heitner, J. F., Klem, I., Rasheed, D., Chandra, A., Kim, H. W., Van Assche, L. M. R., Parker, M., Judd, R. M., Jollis, J. G., & Kim, R. J. (2014). Stress cardiac MR imaging compared with stress echocardiography in the early evaluation of patients who present to the emergency department with intermediate-risk chest pain. Radiology, 271(1), 56-64. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130557