Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Coronary artery disease (2) (remove)
Institute
The aim of this study is to provide a systematic assessment of the influence of the position on the arterial input function (AIF) for perfusion quantification. In 39 patients with a wide range of left ventricular function the AIF was determined using a diluted contrast bolus of a cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in three left ventricular levels (basal, mid, apex) as well as aortic sinus (AoS). Time to peak signal intensities, baseline corrected peak signal intensity and upslopes were determined and compared to those obtained in the AoS. The error induced by sampling the AIF in a position different to the AoS was determined by Fermi deconvolution. The time to peak signal intensity was strongly correlated (r2 > 0.9) for all positions with a systematic earlier arrival in the basal (− 2153 ± 818 ms), the mid (− 1429 ± 928 ms) and the apical slice (− 450 ± 739 ms) relative to the AoS (all p < 0.001). Peak signal intensity as well as upslopes were strongly correlated (r2 > 0.9 for both) for all positions with a systematic overestimation in all positions relative to the AoS (all p < 0.001 and all p < 0.05). Differences between the positions were more pronounced for patients with reduced ejection fraction. The error of averaged MBF quantification was 8%, 13% and 27% for the base, mid and apex. The location of the AIF significantly influences core parameters for perfusion quantification with a systematic and ejection fraction dependent error. Full quantification should be based on obtaining the AIF as close as possible to the myocardium to minimize these errors.
Background: Kidney transplant recipients (KTR) reflect a high-risk population for coronary artery disease (CAD). CAD is the most common cause for morbidity and mortality in this population. However, only few data are available on the favourable revascularization strategy for these patients as they were often excluded from studies and not mentioned in guidelines.
Methods: This retrospective single-centre study includes patients with a history of kidney transplantation undergoing myocardial revascularization for multivessel or left main CAD by either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, n = 27 patients) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG, n = 24 patients) at University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany, between 2005 and 2015.
Results: In-hospital mortality was higher in the CABG group (20.8% vs. 14.8% PCI group; p = 0.45). In Kaplan-Meier analysis, one-year-survival showed better outcome in the PCI group (85.2% vs. 75%). After four years, outcome was comparable between both strategies (PCI 66.5% vs. CABG 70.8%; log-rank p = 0.94).
Acute kidney injury (AKI), classified by Acute Kidney Injury Network, was observed more frequently after CABG (58.3% vs. 18.5%; p < 0.01). After one year, graft survival was 95.7% in the PCI group and 94.1% in the CABG group. Four year follow-up showed comparable graft survival in both groups (76.8% PCI and 77.0% CABG; p = 0.78).
Conclusion: In this retrospective single-centre study of KTR requiring myocardial revascularization, PCI seems to be superior to CABG with regard to in-hospital mortality, acute kidney injury and one-year-survival. To optimise treatment of these high-risk patients, larger-scaled studies are urgently warranted.