| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Circulation. 2000;101:2375.)
© 2000 American Heart Association, Inc.
Clinical Investigation and Reports |
From the Departments of Internal Medicine (Cardiology Section) (W.G.H., R.J.A., D.M.H., G.A.B., M.S.T.) and Radiology (W.G.H., C.A.H., K.M.L.), Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC; and the Departments of Internal Medicine (Cardiovascular Division) (L.D.H., R.A.L., R.M.P.) and Radiology (G.D.C., R.M.P.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Tex.
Correspondence to W. Gregory Hundley, MD, Cardiology Section, Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 75157-1045. E-mail ghundley{at}wfubmc.edu
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Methods and ResultsSeventeen patients (15 men, 2 women, age 36
to 77 years) with recurrent chest pain >3 months after successful
percutaneous intervention underwent PC-MRI measurements
of coronary artery flow reserve followed by assessments of
stenosis severity with computer-assisted quantitative
coronary angiography. The intervention was performed in the
left anterior descending coronary artery in 15 patients, one of
its diagonal branches in 2 patients, and the right coronary
artery in 1 patient. A PC-MRI coronary flow reserve value
2.0
was 100% and 82% sensitive and 89% and 100% specific for detecting
a luminal diameter narrowing of
70% and
50%, respectively.
ConclusionsAssessments of coronary flow reserve with PC-MRI can be used to identify flow-limiting stenoses (luminal diameter narrowings >70%) in patients with recurrent chest pain in the months after a successful percutaneous intervention.
Key Words: magnetic resonance imaging coronary disease restenosis
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
With MRI, coronary arteries,8 9 arterial stenoses10 and anomalies,11 and intracoronary stents12 can be located, and CAFR can be measured.13 Because flow reserve is reduced in patients with restenosis,4 14 we hypothesized that MRI could be used to identify restenosis in the months after successful percutaneous intervention. To test this hypothesis, we compared MRI measures of CAFR with measures of stenosis severity obtained with computer-assisted quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in a group of patients with recurrent chest pain after successful percutaneous intervention.
| Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
6 weeks after successful
percutaneous intervention. Data from 7 of these
patients were presented in a previously published comparison of
MRI and intracoronary Doppler measurements of
CAFR.15 Patients were ineligible for enrollment if they
(1) had contraindication to MRI (a pacemaker or defibrillator,
intracranial metal, or claustrophobia), (2) had contraindication to
receiving adenosine (heart block or reactive airways disease),
or (3) had an underlying condition that could substantially alter CAFR
independent of stenosis severity (previous coronary
artery bypass grafting, unstable angina, or prior myocardial infarction
in the region subserved by the coronary artery that underwent
prior intervention). All substances or medications, such as
caffeine, which potentially might interfere with the action or
metabolism of adenosine, were withheld 24 hours
before study.
Study Design
Each subject underwent MRI followed immediately by contrast
coronary angiography, so that the 2 procedures were separated
by <6 hours. During MRI and contrast angiography, the site of previous
intervention was visualized. During MRI, coronary flow was
measured at baseline and after 140 µg ·
kg-1 · min-1 IV
adenosine (the dose commonly used during studies incorporating
radionuclide scintigraphy).16 All data,
including stenosis severity and CAFR determinations, were
compiled, analyzed, and stored without knowledge of the
findings obtained during the other procedure.
MRI Technique
MRI was performed in 12 patients (Winston-Salem) with a 1.5-T GE
Horizon, in 6 patients (Winston-Salem) with a 1.5-T GE
Cardiovascular (both General Electric Medical Systems),
and in 2 patients (Dallas) with a 1.5-T Picker Vista HPQ (Picker
International, Inc) whole-body imaging system. A phased-array cardiac
surface coil (General Electric) or a standard quadrature 20x26-cm
spine coil (Picker) was used as a radiofrequency receiver. Each patient
was imaged in the supine position with ECG monitoring leads, a brachial
blood pressure cuff, and a pulse oximeter attached.
The coronary artery in which the previous intervention took
place was imaged in tangential and longitudinal planes, according to
previously published techniques, through the use of a gradient echo
breath-hold acquisition.9 15 In patients with an
intracoronary stent or a coronary stenosis, a
cross-sectional view of the artery 1 to 2 cm distal to the area of
signal dropout was obtained (Figure 1
).
When no signal dropout was appreciated, the cross-sectional image was
positioned in the middle segment of the vessel of prior
intervention.15
|
To measure flow, cine phase-contrast (PC) breath-hold acquisitions were acquired perpendicularly across vessel segments in the cross-sectional slice position determined from the gradient-echo acquisitions. The number of k-space lines acquired per frame in each R-R interval was adjusted for each patient studied to yield 4 to 5 frames per cardiac cycle (temporal resolution ranging from 112 to 168 ms). Other imaging parameters included a 7-mm slice thickness, a 256x256 matrix, a field of view of 21 to 24 cm, a flip angle of 40°, a repetition time of 13.8 (GE) and 19.5 (Picker) ms, and an echo time of 6.7 (GE) and 11 (Picker) ms. A three-quarterphase field of view was used to keep the duration of the breath-hold between 18 to 28 seconds. After resting coronary arterial flow was measured, 140 µg · kg-1 · min-1 adenosine was infused intravenously for 6 minutes, during the last 3 minutes of which coronary flow measurements were repeated. The segmentation of k-space was reduced (increasing scan time) as the heart rate increased after adenosine administration (decreasing scan time), and thus the duration of the breath-hold remained relatively constant for the baseline and stress acquisitions.
Coronary arterial flow was calculated according to previously published techniques.13 15 17 At the time of analysis of the MRI data, paired magnitude images and velocity maps were displayed on an image-processing workstation. On the baseline and peak flow image sets, a region of interest (ROI) was generated by manually tracing the vessel lumen on the magnitude image. Afterward, the ROI was transferred to the velocity map, and the mean volume flow velocity was determined for each frame of the cine sequence. Mean flow (at baseline and stress) was calculated by averaging the flow per frame over the cardiac cycle.
Using prospective gating, images were not acquired during the last 30 to 100 ms of diastole, when blood flow in the left anterior coronary arterial circulation has been shown with a Doppler guide wire and MRI techniques to be high.17 18 For this terminal portion of the cardiac cycle, we estimated flow to be the same as the flow in the last imaged diastolic frame. CAFR was defined as the ratio of peak flow (measured after adenosine infusion) to baseline flow.
Cardiac Catheterization
After MRI, patients were transferred immediately to the
catheterization laboratory, and after insertion of a 7F
or 8F sheath into the femoral artery, a 7F diagnostic
catheter was positioned in the coronary artery ostium of
interest. Images of the site of previous intervention were obtained in
2 orthogonal views. Stenosis severity was determined with
QCA, according to previously published techniques.19
Data Analysis
All data are expressed as mean±1 SD. The values for
stenosis severity calculated with QCA were compared with the
CAFR measurements made with MRI with a 2-variable linear regression
analysis. To determine if the correlation coefficient was
significantly different from 0, a Students t test was
performed. The interobserver variability in the analysis of
PC-MRI flow reserve data was compared by use of the analysis of
Bland and Altman.20
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
The length of artery visualized (from the ostium to the most distal
segment) ranged from 6.8 to 12.4 cm in the left anterior descending
coronary artery or its diagonal branches and 9.4 cm in the
right coronary artery. Coronary arterial
diameters distal to the sites of prior intervention as determined by
QCA ranged from 1.8 to 4.8 mm. Representative
studies from patients 10 and 9 are displayed in Figures 2
and 3
.
|
|
For patients with a luminal diameter stenosis of <50%, >50%
but <70%, and >70%, PC-MRI CAFR values were 3.0±0.6, 2.1±1.2, and
1.1±0.3, respectively (P<0.0001). The correlation between
luminal narrowing determined by QCA and MRI CAFR is shown in Figure 4
. The sensitivity and specificity of an
MRI CAFR value of
2.0 were 100% and 89%, respectively, for the
identification of a coronary arterial
stenosis >70%, and 82% and 100%, respectively, for the
identification of a stenosis >50%. The interobserver
variability for the MRI measurements of CAFR in all subjects (range of
flow reserves measured, 0.5 to 4.0) was -0.1±0.4 (Figure 5
).
|
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Restenosis can be characterized by (1) a clinical end point or event (most often recurrent angina or required repeat revascularization),25 (2) an abnormality of coronary flow or fractional flow reserve,26 27 or (3) a diminution of coronary artery luminal dimensions.1 2 3 Most commonly, it is defined as a recurrent luminal diameter narrowing of >50% at the site of a previously successful intervention.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25 Because we measured CAFR, our data reflect the functional importance of the stenoses within the coronary arterial lumen, not merely the morphology. For this reason, it is not surprising that our technique was only 82% sensitive for detecting a recurrent luminal diameter narrowing of >50%, since this degree of stenosis may or may not be functionally significant. If one uses a 50% luminal narrowing to define restenosis, the sensitivity and specificity of our technique are somewhat higher than other forms of noninvasive functional testing, such as radionuclide scintigraphy22 and stress echocardiography23 (sensitivity 20% to 95% and specificity 59% to 90%) but still not equivalent to contrast coronary angiography. Perhaps the sensitivity and specificity of these other noninvasive modalities for detecting restenosis would be higher if they were compared with a functional rather than a purely angiographic assessment of lumen diameter.
There is disagreement as to whether clinical end points or functional/physiological assessments such as CAFR should be used to define restenosis rather than a dichotomous variable based on 50% encroachment of the coronary arterial lumen.28 Because the angiographic analysis of the coronary lumen may underestimate the severity of narrowing in patients with diffuse coronary artery disease,29 particularly if lesion geometry is complicated,28 29 several investigators have reported on the utility of intracoronary Doppler-derived measurements of CAFR for identifying restenosis.27 30 31 Our results with PC-MRI are similar to those obtained invasively in 3 respects. First, our CAFR value of 1.6 to 2.0 is similar to the invasive value of 1.5±0.4 for identifying restenosis.27 30 31 Second, the interobserver variability of invasive measures of CAFR is 0.1±0.5, whereas with PC-MRI it is -0.1± 0.4.27 30 31 And third, our data are consistent with previously published invasive assessments of CAFR, which indicate that some stenoses of intermediate severity (45% to 70% luminal diameter narrowing) are flow limiting during stress, whereas others are not.32
The use of PC-MRI to measure CAFR is advantageous for several reasons.
First, it is safe and easily performed in an outpatient setting without
the need for ionizing radiation or intravenous contrast
material. This allows for serial quantitative assessments to be
performed, a helpful feature when monitoring patients long term after a
therapeutic intervention. Second, it provides a method of visualizing
coronary anatomy directly, including the location of
stenoses and previously deployed stents. This information is
not provided with ECG, echocardiography, or
radionuclide scintigraphy, and it may be useful in
preparation for a repeat revascularization
procedure. Third, it can be used to detect functional
restenosis regardless of the type of
percutaneous intervention (balloon angioplasty,
directional or rotational atherectomy, or intracoronary
stenting). The use of PC-MRI to measure flow reserve distal to the site
of prior intervention is particularly useful in patients with
intracardiac stents (
50% of our cases) because the metal in an
intracoronary stent causes a signal void (Figures 1
and 3
) that prohibits an assessment of stenosis severity
with the use of conventional gradient echocardiographic
techniques.12
Our study has limitations. First, our results are not applicable to patients with abnormal CAFR at rest, including (1) those who have chest pain within 6 weeks of their percutaneous intervention, since the vasoreactivity of the microcirculation returns slowly to normal after the intervention,4 30 31 (2) those with disease processes that impair microcirculatory vasoreactivity, such as previous myocardial infarction, dilated or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, moderate to severe valvular heart disease, severe hypertension, or (3) the presence of coronary bypass grafts that attach to the coronary artery distal to the slice position where CAFR was measured.18 In these patient groups, the measurement of fractional flow reserve may be useful for assessing the severity of epicardial coronary arterial stenoses.18 Second, our total scan time (range 44 to 75 minutes) and analysis time (average 1 hour) were lengthy. Strategies that incorporate real-time imaging33 and automated analysis34 could substantially reduce these times. Third, MRI investigators were notified of the site of prior intervention before scanning. We are uncertain of our results if the site of prior intervention was unknown. Although MRI investigators misidentified the site of intervention in 1 patient, the review of the catheterization images from the initial percutaneous intervention could be used to identify the underlying anatomy and avoid this type of error. Fourth, we measured CAFR in anterior coronary artery segments >2 mm in diameter. We did not measure absolute coronary flow in the left anterior circulation, nor did we measure CAFR in vessel segments that undergo marked in-plane motion such as the middle right or circumflex coronary arteries. Precise measurements of absolute coronary flow may require strategies that use higher spatial resolution35 36 or through-plane motion correction.37 In addition, pulse sequences that incorporate higher temporal resolution (which reduce the blurring of vessel regions caused by marked lateral in-plane motion) may increase the accuracy of coronary flow and flow reserve measurements further.38
In conclusion, in patients who have chest pain >6 weeks after percutaneous intervention, PC-MRI measures of coronary arterial flow reserve can be used to identify functionally important narrowings at the site of prior intervention in the proximal and middle segments of anterior coronary arterial segments. The utility of this technique for detecting 50% luminal narrowings by angiography (the most commonly used definition of restenosis) is similar to other noninvasive imaging modalities.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
Received September 28, 1999; revision received December 20, 1999; accepted December 22, 1999.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2. Macaya C, Serruys PW, Ruygrok P, et al. Continued benefit of coronary stenting versus balloon angioplasty: 1-year clinical follow-up of Benestent trial: Benestent Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27:255261.[Abstract]
3.
Bell MR, Berger PB, Bresnahan JF, et al.
Initial and long-term outcome of 354 patients after coronary
balloon angioplasty of total coronary artery occlusions.
Circulation. 1992;85:10031011.
4.
Wilson RF, Johnson MR, Marcus ML, et al.
The effect of coronary angioplasty on CFR.
Circulation. 1988;77:873885.
5. Parisi AF, Folland ED, Hartigan P, on behalf of the Veterans Affairs ACME Investigators. A comparison of angioplasty with medical therapy in the treatment of single-vessel coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:5658.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6.
Bottner RK, Green CE, Ewels CJ, et al.
Recurrent ischemia more than 1 year after successful
percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.
Circulation. 1989;80:15801584.
7. Block PC. Restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty-anatomic and pathophysiological mechanisms: strategies for prevention. Circulation. 1990;81(suppl IV):IV-2IV-4.
8. Edelman RR, Manning WJ, Burnstein D, et al. Coronary arteries: breath-hold MR angiography. Radiology. 1991;81:641643.
9.
Hundley WG, Clarke GD, Landau C, et al.
Noninvasive determination of infarct artery patency by cine magnetic
resonance angiography. Circulation. 1995;91:13471353.
10.
Manning WJ, Li W, Edelman RR. A preliminary
report comparing magnetic resonance coronary angiography with
conventional angiography. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:828832.
11.
Post JC, vanRossum AC, Bronzwaer JG, et al.
Magnetic resonance angiography of anomalous coronary arteries:
a new gold standard for delineating the proximal course?
Circulation. 1995;92:31633171.
12. Duerinckx AJ, Atkinson D, Hurwitz R. Assessment of coronary artery patency after stent placement using magnetic resonance angiography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;8:896902.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13.
Hundley WG, Lange RA, Clarke GD, et al.
Assessment of coronary arterial flow and flow
reserve with magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation. 1996;93:15021508.
14.
Serruys PW, di Mario C, Piek J, et al, for
the Debate study group. Prognostic value of intracoronary flow
velocity and diameter stenosis in assessing the short-and
long-term outcomes of coronary balloon angioplasty.
Circulation. 1997;96:33693377.
15.
Hundley WG, Hamilton CA, Clarke GD, et al.
Visualization and functional assessment of proximal and middle left
anterior descending coronary stenoses in humans with
magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation. 1999;99:32483254.
16.
Verani MS, Mahmarian JJ, Hixson JB, et al.
Diagnosis of coronary artery disease by controlled
coronary vasodilation with adenosine and thallium-201
scintigraphy in patients unable to exercise.
Circulation. 1990;82:8087.
17.
Clarke GC, Eckels R, Chaney C, et al.
Measurement of absolute epicardial coronary artery flow and
flow reserve using breath-hold cine phase-contrast magnetic resonance
imaging. Circulation. 1995;91:26272634.
18. Kern MJ, Debrun B, Pills NHJ. From research to clinical practice: current role of intracoronary physiologically based decision making in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;30:613620.[Abstract]
19. Leung WH, Sanders W, Alderman EL. Coronary artery quantitation and data management system for paired cineangiograms. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1991;24:121134.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
20. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between 2 methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307310.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
21.
Honan MD, Bengtson JR, Pryor DB, et al.
Exercise treadmill testing is a poor predictor of anatomic
restenosis after angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction.
Circulation. 1989;80:15851595.
22. DePuey EG. Myocardial perfusion imaging with thallium-201 to evaluate patients before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1991;84:5965.
23. Heinle SK, Lieberman EB, Ancukiewicz MR, et al. Usefulness of dobutamine echocardiography for detecting restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol. 1993;72:12201225.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24.
Achenbach S, Moshage W, Bachmann K.
Detection of high-grade restenosis after PTCA using
contrast-enhanced electron beam CT. Circulation. 1997;96:27852788.
25.
Topol EJ, Leya F, Pinkerton CA, et al, on
behalf of the CAVEAT Study Group. A comparison of coronary
angioplasty with directional atherectomy in patients with
coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:221227.
26.
Redberg RF, Sobol Y, Chou TM, et al.
Adenosine-induced coronary vasodilation during
transesophageal echocardiography:
rapid and safe measurement of CFR ration can predict significant left
anterior descending coronary stenosis.
Circulation. 1995;92:190196.
27.
Zijilstra F, den Boer A, Reiber JHC, et al.
Assessment of immediate and long-term functional results of
percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.
Circulation. 1988;78:1524.
28.
Topol EJ, Nissen SE. Our preoccupation with
coronary luminology: the dissociation between clinical and
angiographic findings in ischemic heart disease.
Circulation. 1995;92:23332342.
29.
Grondin CM, Dyrda I, Pasternac A, et al.
Discrepancies between cineangiographic and post-mortem findings in
patients with coronary artery disease and recent myocardial
revascularization. Circulation. 1974;49:703708.
30.
van Liebergen RAM, Piek JJ, Koch KT, et al.
Immediate and long-term effect of balloon angioplasty or stent
implantation on the absolute and relative coronary blood flow
velocity reserve. Circulation. 1998;98:21332140.
31.
Danis GB, Pirelli S, Maura L, et al. Which
variable of stenosis severity best describes the
significance of an isolated left anterior descending coronary
artery lesion? Correlation between quantitative coronary
angiography, intracoronary Doppler measurements and high
dose dipyridamole echocardiography.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:526533.
32. White CW, Wright CB, Doty DB, et al. Does visual interpretation of the coronary arteriogram predict the physiologic importance of a coronary stenosis? N Engl J Med. 1984;310:819824.[Abstract]
33.
Yang PC, Kerr AB, Liu AC, et al. New
real-time interactive cardiac magnetic resonance imaging system
complements echocardiography. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 1998;32:20492056.
34. Chwialkowski MR, Ibrahim Y, Li HF, et al. A method for fully automated quantitative analysis of arterial flow using flow-sensitized MR images. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1996;20:365378.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
35. Tang C, Blatter DD, Parker DL. Accuracy of phase-contrast flow measurements in the presence of partial-volume effects. Magn Reson Med. 1993;3:377385.
36. Hofman MB, Visser FC, vanRossum AC, et al. In vivo validation of magnetic resonance blood volume flow measurements with limited spatial resolution in small vessels. Magn Reson Med. 1995;33:778784.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
37. Frayne R, Polzin JA, Mazaheri Y, et al. Effect of and correction for in-plane myocardial motion on estimates of coronary-volume flow rates. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;7:815828.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
38. Hofman MB, Wickline SA, Lorenz CH. Quantification of in-plane motion of the coronary arteries during the cardiac cycle: implications for acquisition window duration for MR flow quantification. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;8:568576.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
D. A. Bluemke, S. Achenbach, M. Budoff, T. C. Gerber, B. Gersh, L. D. Hillis, W. G. Hundley, W. J. Manning, B. F. Printz, M. Stuber, et al. Noninvasive Coronary Artery Imaging: Magnetic Resonance Angiography and Multidetector Computed Tomography Angiography: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young Circulation, July 29, 2008; 118(5): 586 - 606. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S Sridharan, G Derrick, J Deanfield, and A M Taylor Assessment of differential branch pulmonary blood flow: a comparative study of phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging and radionuclide lung perfusion imaging. Heart, July 1, 2006; 92(7): 963 - 968. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. H. Mieres, L. J. Shaw, A. Arai, M. J. Budoff, S. D. Flamm, W. G. Hundley, T. H. Marwick, L. Mosca, A. R. Patel, M. A. Quinones, et al. Role of Noninvasive Testing in the Clinical Evaluation of Women With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: Consensus Statement From the Cardiac Imaging Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, American Heart Association Circulation, February 8, 2005; 111(5): 682 - 696. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Albers, T. Nitsche, J. Boese, R. De Simone, I. Wolf, A. Schroeder, and C. F. Vahl Regurgitant jet evaluation using three-dimensional echocardiography and magnetic resonance Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2004; 78(1): 96 - 102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. E. Langerak, H. W. Vliegen, J. W. Jukema, A. H. Zwinderman, H. J. Lamb, A. de Roos, and E. E. van der Wall Vein Graft Function Improvement after Percutaneous Intervention: Evaluation with MR Flow Mapping Radiology, September 1, 2003; 228(3): 834 - 841. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Bogaert, R. Kuzo, S. Dymarkowski, R. Beckers, J. Piessens, and F. E. Rademakers Coronary Artery Imaging with Real-time Navigator Three-dimensional Turbo-Field-Echo MR Coronary Angiography: Initial Experience Radiology, March 1, 2003; 226(3): 707 - 716. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Ruscazio, R. Montisci, P. Colonna, C. Caiati, L. Chen, G. Lai, M. Cadeddu, R. Pirisi, and S. Iliceto Detection of coronary restenosis aftercoronary angioplasty by contrast-enhanced transthoracic echocardiographic Doppler assessment of coronary flow velocity reserve J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 4, 2002; 40(5): 896 - 903. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Lotz, C. Meier, A. Leppert, and M. Galanski Cardiovascular Flow Measurement with Phase-Contrast MR Imaging: Basic Facts and Implementation RadioGraphics, May 1, 2002; 22(3): 651 - 671. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. J. Kern and B. Meier Evaluation of the Culprit Plaque and the Physiological Significance of Coronary Atherosclerotic Narrowings Circulation, June 26, 2001; 103(25): 3142 - 3149. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Circulation Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 2000 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |