Person:

Kwong, Raymond

There are a number of imaging tests that are used in the setting of acute myocardial infarction and acute coronary syndrome. Each has their strengths and limitations. Experts from the European Society of Cardiac Radiology and the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging together with other prominent imagers reviewed the literature. It is clear that there is a definite role for imaging in these patients. While comparative accuracy, convenience and cost have largely guided test decisions in the past, the introduction of newer tests is being held to a higher standard which compares patient outcomes. Multicenter randomized comparative effectiveness trials with outcome measures are required.

The lack of standardized reporting of the magnitude of ischemia on noninvasive imaging contributes to variability in translating the severity of ischemia across stress imaging modalities. We identified the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) death or myocardial infarction (MI) associated with ≥10% ischemic myocardium on stress nuclear imaging as the risk threshold for stress echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance. A narrative review revealed that ≥10% ischemic myocardium on stress nuclear imaging was associated with a median rate of CAD death or MI of 4.9%/year (interquartile range: 3.75% to 5.3%). For stress echocardiography, ≥3 newly dysfunctional segments portend a median rate of CAD death or MI of 4.5%/year (interquartile range: 3.8% to 5.9%). Although imprecisely delineated, moderate-severe ischemia on cardiac magnetic resonance may be indicated by ≥4 of 32 stress perfusion defects or ≥3 dobutamine-induced dysfunctional segments. Risk-based thresholds can define equivalent amounts of ischemia across the stress imaging modalities, which will help to translate a common understanding of patient risk on which to guide subsequent management decisions.