Diagnostic accuracy of adenosine versus dobutamine stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance to detect severe coronary artery disease in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

Diagnostic accuracy of adenosine versus dobutamine stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance to detect severe coronary artery disease in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.Background: Stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a common non-invasive modality used for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, its accuracy for diagnosing CAD in patients with moderate to severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (M-S LVSD) is unclear. Although adenosine is the most commonly used agent in stress CMR, haemodynamic responses to adenosine may be diminished in M-S LVSD, so an alternative strategy utilising inotropic stress may provide superior diagnostic performance. We hypothesised that dobutamine stress perfusion CMR would achieve high diagnostic accuracy, exceeding that of adenosine stress CMR for diagnosing severe CAD in patients with M-S LVSD.Thesis outline and aims: This thesis comprises two studies: (1) a retrospective study (Chapter 3) examining the impact of LVSD on haemodynamic responses to adenosine, and (2) prospective study (Chapters 4–6) comparing the diagnostic accuracy of adenosine and dobutamine stress CMR in M-S LVSD.Methods: In the first retrospective study of 497 patients, haemodynamic responses to adenosine were compared in subjects with normal, mild-moderately impaired and severely impaired LV systolic function. For the second study, 41 subjects (31 with M-S LVSD and 10 matched controls [MCs]) underwent both adenosine and dobutamine stress CMR, with invasive coronary angiography or CT coronary angiography as the reference standard.Results: The retrospective study showed that fewer patients in the severe LVSD group (26%) achieved an adequate heart rate (HR) response with adenosine compared to those with mild-moderate (55%) and normal LV systolic function (68%), and more patients with severe LVSD required a dose increase (41% versus 24% and 19%, respectively, pIn the prospective DISCORDANCE study, 31 LVSD subjects (age 66.1±8.9 years, LVEF 34.57.2%) and 10 MCs (age 63.5±6.4 years, EF 57.3±5.1%) were studied. In MCs, dobutamine produced a higher hyperaemic response than adenosine (2.1±1.4 ml/min/g versus 1.6±0.2 ml/min/g, respectively (pConclusion: Patients with severe LVSD have a blunted response to adenosine, with more patients requiring higher adenosine doses to achieve a satisfactory haemodynamic response. Comprehensive stress CMR with both adenosine and dobutamine achieve good diagnostic performance for identifying significant CAD in patients with severe LVSD. The diagnostic accuracy for detecting significant CAD appears comparable with both stress modalities in M-S LVSD, though the detection of small differences in diagnostic performance is precluded by the relatively small size of the cohort examined.