Trial reportJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2016
Factors associated with false-negative cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion studies: A Clinical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging in coronary artery disease (CE-MARC) substudy.
Trial report in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Article
- Pulmonary blood volume as a marker of adenosine-induced cardiac hyperemia: A Rubidium-82 study.Clinical physiology and functional imaging · 2025Article
- Splenic switch-off as a novel marker for adenosine response in nitrogen-13 ammonia PET myocardial perfusion imaging: Cross-validation against CMR using a hybrid PET/MR device.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022Article
- Assessment of stress adequacy with adenosine: Does the answer lie in the spleen?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022Article
- Polymeric nanoparticles in the diagnosis and treatment of myocardial infarction: Challenges and future prospects.Materials today. Bio · 2022Review
- Stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance and serial fractional flow reserve assessment of the left anterior descending artery in patients undergoing right coronary artery chronic total occlusion revascularization.Cardiology journal · 2022Article
- Quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion mapping to assess hyperaemic response to adenosine stress.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2021Article
- Comparison of two dipyridamole infusion protocols for myocardial perfusion imaging in subjects with low likelihood of significant obstructive coronary artery disease.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Article
- MRI perfusion in patients with stable chest-pain.The British journal of radiology · 2020Review
- Comparison of MOLLI and ShMOLLI in Terms of T1 Reactivity and the Relationship between T1 Reactivity and Conventional Signs of Response during Adenosine Stress Perfusion CMRBalkan medical journal · 2020Article
- Is heart rate response a reliable marker of adenosine-induced coronary hyperemia?The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2018Article
- A comparison of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging in left main stem or equivalent coronary artery disease: a CE-MARC substudy.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2017Article
- Effects of caffeine intake prior to stress cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging on regadenoson- versus adenosine-induced hyperemia as measured by T1 mapping.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2017Article
- Splenic T1-mapping: a novel quantitative method for assessing adenosine stress adequacy for cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo examine factors associated with false-negative cardiovascular magnetic resonance (MR) perfusion studies within the large prospective Clinical Evaluation of MR imaging in Coronary artery disease (CE-MARC) study population. Myocardial perfusion MR has excellent diagnostic accuracy to detect coronary heart disease (CHD). However, causes of false-negative MR perfusion studies are not well understood. MATERIALS AND
methodsCE-MARC prospectively recruited patients with suspected CHD and mandated MR, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, and invasive angiography. This subanalysis identified all patients with significant coronary stenosis by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and MR perfusion (1.5T, T1 -weighted gradient echo), using the original blinded image read. We explored patient and imaging characteristics related to false-negative or true-positive MR perfusion results, with reference to QCA. Multivariate regression analysis assessed the likelihood of false-negative MR perfusion according to four characteristics: poor image quality, triple-vessel disease, inadequate hemodynamic response to adenosine, and Duke jeopardy score (angiographic myocardium-at-risk score).
resultsIn all, 265 (39%) patients had significant angiographic disease (mean age 62, 79% male). Thirty-five (5%) had false-negative and 230 (34%) true-positive MR perfusion. Poor MR perfusion image quality, triple-vessel disease, and inadequate hemodynamic response were similar between false-negative and true-positive groups (odds ratio, OR [95% confidence interval, CI]: 4.1 (0.82-21.0), P = 0.09; 1.2 (0.20-7.1), P = 0.85, and 1.6 (0.65-3.8), P = 0.31, respectively). Mean Duke jeopardy score was significantly lower in the false-negative group (2.6 ± 1.7 vs. 5.4 ± 3.0, OR 0.34 (0.21-0.53), P < 0.0001).
conclusionFalse-negative cardiovascular MR perfusion studies are uncommon, and more common in patients with lower angiographic myocardium-at-risk. In CE-MARC, poor image quality, triple-vessel disease, and inadequate hemodynamic response were not significantly associated with false-negative MR perfusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.