Abstract
Quantification of myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) using vasodilator stress cardiac magnetic resonance is increasingly used to detect coronary artery disease. However, MPR can also be altered because of changes in microvascular function. We aimed to determine whether MPR can distinguish between ischemic cardiomyopathy (IC) secondary to coronary artery disease and non-IC (NIC) with microvascular dysfunction and no underlying epicardial coronary disease. A total of 60 patients (mean age 65 ± 14 years, 30% women), including 31 with IC and 29 with NIC, were identified from a pre-existing vasodilator stress cardiac magnetic resonance registry. Short-axis cine slices were used to measure left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) using the Simpson method of disks. MPR index (MPRi) was determined from first-pass myocardial perfusion images during stress and rest using the upslope ratio, normalized for the arterial input and corrected for rate pressure product. Patients in both groups were divided into subgroups of LVEF ≤35% and LVEF >35%. Differences in MPRi between the subgroups were examined. MPRi was moderately correlated with LVEF in patients with NIC (r = 0.53, p = 0.03), whereas the correlation in patients with IC was lower (r = 0.32, p = 0.22). Average LVEF in NIC and IC was 34% ± 8% and 35% ± 8%, respectively (p = 0.63). MPRi was not significantly different in IC compared with NIC (1.17 [0.88 to 1.61] vs 1.23 [1.07 to 1.66], p = 0.41), including the subgroups of LVEF (IC: 1.20 ± 0.56 vs NIC: 1.15 ± 0.24, p = 0.75 for LVEF ≤35% and IC: 1.35 ± 0.44 vs NIC: 1.58 ± 0.50, p = 0.19 for LVEF >35%). However, MPRi was significantly lower in patients with LVEF ≤35% compared with those with LVEF>35% (1.17 ± 0.40 vs 1.47 ± 0.47, p = 0.01). Similar difference between LVEF groups was noted in the patients with NIC (1.15 ± 0.24 vs 1.58 ± 0.50, p = 0.006) but not in the patients with IC (1.20 ± 0.56 vs 1.35 ± 0.44, p = 0.42). MPRi can be abnormal in the presence of left ventricular dysfunction with nonischemic etiology. This is a potential pitfall to consider when using this approach to detect ischemia because of epicardial coronary disease using myocardial perfusion imaging.