Cardiac Imaging After Coronary Revascularisation

Düzgün Can ŞENBİLa , Mecit KANTARCIb
aErzincan Binali Yıldırım University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Erzincan, Türkiye
bAtatürk University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Erzurum, Türkiye

Şenbil DC, Kantarcı M. Cardiac imaging after coronary revascularisation. In: Bayraktaroğlu S, ed. Advances in Cardiovascular System Imaging. 1st ed. Ankara: Türkiye Klinikleri; 2024. p.24-8.

ABSTRACT
Globally, coronary artery disease is the primary cause of death. The treatment of coronary artery disease frequently involves percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures. While functional tests are typically thought of when evaluating coronary artery disease, imaging techniques like coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography are starting to gain prominence. After revascularization, coronary CT angiography (CTA) is very convenient for assessing the anatomy of the graft and stents. Echocardiography is the most readily available and initial imaging modality following revascularization. For assesing cardiac viability, myocardia perfusion scintigraphy (SPECT) remains as a viable option. By assessing fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake and perfusion, positron emission tomography (PET) computed tomography (CT) can provide insight into myocardial perfusion. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a viability measurement technique that has grown in acceptance over time due to its radiation-free nature. Its utility is increased by its excellent sensitivity and specificity. Positive findings have been obtained from artificial intelligence experiments that have been conducted in the field of cardiac imaging in recent years.

Keywords: Coronary revascularization; cardiac MRI; viability; perfusion

Referanslar

  1. Konstantinov IE. The first coronary artery bypass operation and forgotten pioneers. The Annals of thoracic surgery. 1997;64(5):1522-3. [Crossref]
  2. Members TF, Montalescot G, Sechtem U, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. European heart journal. 2013;34(38):2949-3003. [Crossref]
  3. Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/ AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2012;60(24):e44-e164.
  4. Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes: The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European Heart Journal. 2020;41(3):407-77. [Crossref]
  5. Khoury AF, Rivera JM, Mahmarian JJ, Verani MS. Adenosine thallium-201 tomography in evaluation of graft patency late after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1997;29(6):1290-5. [Crossref]
  6. Pfisterer M, Emmenegger H, Schmitt H, et al. Accuracy of serial myocardial perfusion scintigraphy with thallium-201 for prediction of graft patency early and late after coronary artery bypass surgery. A controlled prospective study. Circulation. 1982;66(5):1017-24. [Crossref]
  7. Chow BJ, Ahmed O, Small G, et al. Prognostic value of CT angiography in coronary bypass patients. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2011;4(5):496-502. [Crossref]
  8. Min JK, Gilmore A, Budoff MJ, Berman DS, O'Day K. Cost-effectiveness of coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion SPECT for evaluation of patients with chest pain and no known coronary artery disease. Radiology. 2010;254(3):801-8. [Crossref]
  9. Cwajg JM, Cwajg E, Nagueh SF, et al. End-diastolic wall thickness as a predictor of recovery of function in myocardial hibernation: relation to rest-redistribution Tl-201 tomography and dobutamine stress echocardiography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2000;35(5):1152-61. [Crossref]
  10. Katikireddy CK, Samim A. Myocardial viability assessment and utility in contemporary management of ischemic cardiomyopathy. Clinical cardiology. 2022;45(2):152-61. [Crossref]
  11. Kim RJ, Wu E, Rafael A, et al. The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to identify reversible myocardial dysfunction. New England Journal of Medicine. 2000;343(20):1445-53. [Crossref]
  12. Garcia MJ, Kwong RY, Scherrer-Crosbie M, et al. State of the art: imaging for myocardial viability: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2020;13(7):e000053. [Crossref]
  13. Katikireddy CK, Mann N, Brown D, Van Tosh A, Stergiopoulos K. Evaluation of myocardial ischemia and viability by noninvasive cardiac imaging. Expert review of cardiovascular therapy. 2012;10(1):55-73. [Crossref]
  14. Dangas GD, Claessen BE, Caixeta A, Sanidas EA, Mintz GS, Mehran R. In-stent restenosis in the drug-eluting stent era. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2010;56(23):1897-907. [Crossref]
  15. Ebersberger U, Tricarico F, Schoepf UJ, et al. CT evaluation of coronary artery stents with iterative image reconstruction: improvements in image quality and potential for radiation dose reduction. European radiology. 2013;23:125-32. [Crossref]
  16. Kalisz K, Halliburton S, Abbara S, et al. Update on cardiovascular applications of multienergy CT. Radiographics. 2017;37(7):1955-74. [Crossref]
  17. Tatsugami F, Higaki T, Nakamura Y, et al. Deep learning-based image restoration algorithm for coronary CT angiography. European radiology. 2019;29:5322-9. [Crossref]
  18. Garcia AM, Assunção-Jr AN, Dantas-Jr RN, Parga JR, Ganem F. Stent evaluation by coronary computed tomography angiography: a comparison between Iopamidol-370 and Ioversol-320 hypo-osmolar iodine concentration contrasts. The British Journal of Radiology. 2020;93(1115):20200078. [Crossref]
  19. Small GR, Erthal F, Alenazy A, et al. Comparison of coronary CT angiography versus functional imaging for CABG patients: a resource utilization analysis. IJC Heart & Vasculature. 2020;27:100494. [Crossref]
  20. Greenwood JP, Ripley DP, Berry C, et al. Effect of care guided by cardiovascular magnetic resonance, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, or NICE guidelines on subsequent unnecessary angiography rates: the CE-MARC 2 randomized clinical trial. Jama. 2016;316(10):1051-60. [Crossref]
  21. Moschovitis A, Cook S, Meier B. Percutaneous coronary interventions in Europe in 2006. Eurointervention: Journal of Europcr in Collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2010;6(2):189-94. [Crossref]
  22. Park D-W, Kim Y-H, Yun S-C, et al. Complexity of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease and long-term outcomes in patients with unprotected left main disease treated with drug-eluting stents or coronary artery bypass grafting. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011;57(21):2152-9. [Crossref]
  23. Mushtaq S, Conte E, Pontone G, et al. State-of-the-art-myocardial perfusion stress testing: static CT perfusion. Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography. 2020;14(4):294-302. [Crossref]
  24. Mushtaq S, Conte E, Pontone G, et al. Additional Diagnostic Value of CT Perfusion Over Coronary CT Angiography in Patients with Suspected In-stent Restenosis or Coronary Artery Disease Progression The ADVANTAGE Prospective Study. Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. 2019;13(1):S6. [Crossref]
  25. Kühl HP, Lipke CS, Krombach GA, et al. Assessment of reversible myocardial dysfunction in chronic ischaemic heart disease: comparison of contrast-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance and a combined positron emission tomography-single photon emission computed tomography imaging protocol. European heart journal. 2006;27(7):846-53. [Crossref]
  26. Andreini D, Collet C, Leipsic J, et al. Pre-procedural planning of coronary revascularization by cardiac computed tomography: An expert consensus document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography. 2022;16(6):558-72. [Crossref]
  27. Nagel E, Greenwood JP, McCann GP, et al. Magnetic resonance perfusion or fractional flow reserve in coronary disease. New England Journal of Medicine. 2019;380(25):2418-2428. [Crossref]
  28. Arai AE. The cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) approach to assessing myocardial viability. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology. 2011;18(6):1095-102. [Crossref]
  29. Erthal F, Wiefels C, Promislow S, et al. Myocardial viability: From PARR-2 to IMAGE HF-current evidence and future directions. International Journal of Cardiovascular Sciences. 2019;32:70-83. [Crossref]
  30. Jiang B, Guo N, Ge Y, Zhang L, Oudkerk M, Xie X. Development and application of artificial intelligence in cardiac imaging. The British Journal of Radiology. 2020;93(1113):20190812. [Crossref]