Cardiovascular PET/MR: We need evidence, not hype
Tóm tắt
Recent introduction of hybrid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) scanners has created excitement regarding potential applications in cardiovascular medicine. This has led to a number of optimistic assessments of its potential value in the nuclear cardiology literature, although most published data are still at the feasibility or pre-clinical level. Such excitement is understandable and provides “fuel” for generation of the necessary clinical validation studies, which will be required. Given the current scrutiny from payers and government agencies to reduce the costs of cardiac imaging, the responsibility for showing additive benefit lies on the shoulders of those advocating for new, more expensive technologies. In the case of PET/MR, this will be a major challenge, given the high costs of the hybrid procedure and the need for potentially harmful ionizing radiation compared to a cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-only approach. The aim of this editorial is to provide a critical appraisal of the current evidence base for clinical use of PET/MR in cardiology.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Schindler TH. Cardiovascular PET/MR imaging: Quo vadis? J Nucl Cardiol. 2016. doi:10.1007/s12350-016-0451-1.
Schwaiger M, Kunze K, Rischpler C, Nekolla SG. PET/MR: Yet another Tesla? J Nucl Cardiol. 2016. doi:10.1007/s12350-016-0665-2.
Ferrari VA, Whitman B, Blankenship JC, Budoff MJ, Costa M, Weissman NJ, et al Cardiovascular imaging payment and reimbursement systems: Understanding the past and present in order to guide the future. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:324–32.
Abbasi SA, Ertel A, Shah RV, Dandekar V, Chung J, Bhat G, et al Impact of cardiovascular magnetic resonance on management and clinical decision-making in heart failure patients. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15:89.
McGraw S, Mirza O, Bauml MA, Rangarajan VS, Farzaneh-Far A. Downstream clinical consequences of stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance based on appropriate use criteria. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015;17:35.
Kwong RY, Farzaneh-Far A. Measuring myocardial scar by CMR. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:157–60.
Kim RJ, Farzaneh-Far A. The diagnostic utility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with chest pain, elevated cardiac enzymes and non-obstructed coronary arteries. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2009;62:966–71.
Kim HW, Farzaneh-Far A, Kim RJ. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with myocardial infarction: Current and emerging applications. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;55:1–16.
Simonetti OP, Kim RJ, Fieno DS, Hillenbrand HB, Wu E, Bundy JM, et al An improved MR imaging technique for the visualization of myocardial infarction. Radiology. 2001;218:215–23.
Weinmann HJ, Brasch RC, Press WR, Wesbey GE. Characteristics of gadolinium-DTPA complex: A potential NMR contrast agent. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984;142:619–24.
Rehwald WG, Fieno DS, Chen EL, Kim RJ, Judd RM. Myocardial magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent concentrations after reversible and irreversible ischemic injury. Circulation. 2002;105:224–9.
Kim RJ, Albert TS, Wible JH, Elliott MD, Allen JC, Lee JC, et al Performance of delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging with gadoversetamide contrast for the detection and assessment of myocardial infarction: An international, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized trial. Circulation. 2008;117:629–37.
Kim RJ, Fieno DS, Parrish TB, Harris K, Chen EL, Simonetti O, et al Relationship of MRI delayed contrast enhancement to irreversible injury, infarct age, and contractile function. Circulation. 1999;100:1992–2002.
Fieno DS, Kim RJ, Chen EL, Lomasney JW, Klocke FJ, Judd RM. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of myocardium at risk: Distinction between reversible and irreversible injury throughout infarct healing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1985–91.
Nensa F, Poeppel T, Tezgah E, Heusch P, Nassenstein K, Mahabadi AA, et al Integrated FDG PET/MR imaging for the assessment of myocardial salvage in reperfused acute mocardial infarction. Radiology. 2015;276:400–7.
Bulluck H, White SK, Frohlich GM, Casson SG, O’Meara C, Newton A, et al Quantifying the area at risk in reperfused ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients using hybrid cardiac positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9:e003900.
Schwaiger M. Combined positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance as translational tool in cardiology. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9:e004549.
Rischpler C, Langwieser N, Souvatzoglou M, Batrice A, van Marwick S, Snajberk J, et al PET/MRI early after myocardial infarction: evaluation of viability with late gadolinium enhancement transmurality vs. 18F-FDG uptake. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;16:661–9.
Silverman KJ, Hutchins GM, Bulkley BH. Cardiac sarcoid: A clinicopathologic study of 84 unselected patients with systemic sarcoidosis. Circulation. 1978;58:1204–11.
Patel MR, Cawley PJ, Heitner JF, Klem I, Parker MA, Jaroudi WA, et al Detection of myocardial damage in patients with sarcoidosis. Circulation. 2009;120:1969–77.
Hulten E, Agarwal V, Cahill M, Cole G, Vita T, Parrish S, et al Presence of late gadolinium enhancement by cardiac magnetic resonance among patients with suspected cardiac sarcoidosis is associated with adverse cardiovascular prognosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9:e005001.
Blankstein R, Osborne M, Naya M, Waller A, Kim CK, Murthy VL, et al Cardiac positron emission tomography enhances prognostic assessments of patients with suspected cardiac sarcoidosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:329–36.
Ohira H, Birnie DH, Pena E, Bernick J, Mc Ardle B, Leung E, et al Comparison of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in corticosteroid-naive patients with conduction system disease due to cardiac sarcoidosis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:259–69.
Osborne MT, Hulten EA, Singh A, Waller AH, Bittencourt MS, Stewart GC, et al Reduction in (1)(8)F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on serial cardiac positron emission tomography is associated with improved left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014;21:166–74.
Ugander M, Bagi PS, Oki AJ, Chen B, Hsu LY, Aletras AH, et al Myocardial edema as detected by pre-contrast T1 and T2 CMR delineates area at risk associated with acute myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:596–603.
Radunski UK, Lund GK, Stehning C, Schnackenburg B, Bohnen S, Adam G, et al. CMR in patients with severe myocarditis: Diagnostic value of quantitative tissue markers including extracellular volume imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:667–75.
Finn AV, Nakano M, Narula J, Kolodgie FD, Virmani R. Concept of vulnerable/unstable plaque. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2010;30:1282–92.
Farzaneh-Far A, Rudd J, Weissberg PL. Inflammatory mechanisms. Br Med Bull. 2001;59:55–68.
Ripa RS, Knudsen A, Hag AM, Lebech AM, Loft A, Keller SH, et al Feasibility of simultaneous PET/MR of the carotid artery: First clinical experience and comparison to PET/CT. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;3:361–71.
Weinsaft JW, Kim HW, Shah DJ, Klem I, Crowley AL, Brosnan R, et al Detection of left ventricular thrombus by delayed-enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance prevalence and markers in patients with systolic dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:148–57.
Pazos-Lopez P, Pozo E, Siqueira ME, Garcia-Lunar I, Cham M, Jacobi A, et al Value of CMR for the differential diagnosis of cardiac masses. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:896–905.
Nensa F, Tezgah E, Poeppel TD, Jensen CJ, Schelhorn J, Kohler J, et al Integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging in the assessment of cardiac masses: A pilot study. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:255–60.