DOI: 10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.17738 ISSN: 0009-7322

Abstract 17738: Cardiac MRI vs Coronary Angiography in Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Head-to-Head Comparison

Sagar Nagpal, Sindhu Pokhriyal, Pooja bhandari, manar jbara, Suyog Patel
  • Physiology (medical)
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Introduction: Coronary angiography has been the gold standard invasive procedure for diagnosing and treating coronary artery disease (CAD). However, it poses risks and complications. In contrast, cardiac MRI offers non-invasive tools for early detection and diagnosis of CAD, presenting an alternative to angiography with fewer associated risks.

Hypothesis: Our study aims to investigate if MRI can replace invasive procedures in stable CAD, reducing the need for such procedures while maintaining comparable diagnostic outcomes to coronary angiography.

Methods: An extensive literature search was conducted, involving PubMed and Google Scholar databases up to February 2023. After careful evaluation, four clinical trials (CARMENTA, CE-MARC, MR INFORM, and MR Impact 2) comparing MRI and angiography in stable coronary artery disease were included in our study. Animal studies, expert opinions, literature reviews, and studies without reported MRI outcomes were excluded.

Results: In the MR INFORM trial, among 221 patients with significant CMR-detected ischemia, 184 had confirmed angiographic lesions, while 35 did not. There were no significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular events or angina-free status at 1 year between the CMR and angiogram groups. The CE MARC 2 trial involving 752 patients reported a sensitivity of 86.5% and a specificity of 83.4% for multiparametric CMR, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 77.2% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 90.5%. The CARMENTA trial demonstrated a significant reduction in invasive coronary angiograms with CMR as the initial evaluation (87% vs. 100%), without significant differences in outcomes or the detection of obstructive coronary artery disease compared to computed tomography angiography. In the MR Impact 2 trial, CMR exhibited a sensitivity of 75% (±7%) and a specificity of 59% (±8%). The PPV, NPV, and accuracy for CMR were 70% (±5%), 65% (±5%), and 68% (±5%), respectively.

Conclusions: CMR shows promise in diagnosing coronary artery disease, correlating well with angiography and reducing invasive procedures without significant outcome differences. Further research is needed to assess its clinical utility, highlighting its potential role in practice.

More from our Archive