Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 22, 2026

Dynamic Assessments of Coronary Flow Reserve after Myocardial Ischemia Reperfusion in Mice
Published on: August 25, 2023
CMR imaging assessing viability in patients with chronic ventricular dysfunction due to coronary artery disease: a
Jorge Romero1, Xiaonan Xue, Waddy Gonzalez
1Division of Cardiology and Montefiore-Einstein Center for Heart and Vascular Care, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York 10467-2400, USA.
Insights
Contrast delayed enhancement (DE) cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) offers the highest sensitivity for assessing myocardial viability, while low-dose dobutamine (LDD) CMR provides the best specificity. Integrating DE and LDD CMR enhances diagnostic accuracy for patients with left ventricular dysfunction.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Medical Imaging
- Diagnostic Accuracy
Background:
- Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is explored for assessing myocardial viability.
- Optimal CMR strategy for revascularization candidates remains undetermined.
- DE CMR excels at scar identification; LDD CMR identifies contractile reserve.
Purpose of the Study:
- Compare diagnostic accuracy of three CMR techniques for myocardial viability.
- Evaluate end-diastolic wall thickness (EDWT), low-dose dobutamine (LDD), and contrast delayed enhancement (DE) in chronic left ventricular dysfunction.
- Assess CMR's role in patients with coronary artery disease.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review of prospective trials in MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase.
- Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy using bivariate analysis.
- Included studies assessed myocardial viability in chronic LV dysfunction via CMR.
Main Results:
- DE CMR demonstrated highest sensitivity (95%) and negative predictive value (NPV) (90%).
- LDD CMR showed highest specificity (91%) and positive predictive value (PPV) (93%).
- EDWT CMR performed intermediately, with LDD CMR having the lowest sensitivity/NPV and EDWT the lowest specificity/PPV.
Conclusions:
- DE CMR is superior for sensitivity and NPV in predicting contractile function post-revascularization.
- LDD CMR excels in specificity and PPV.
- Combining DE and LDD CMR techniques is recommended for improved diagnostic accuracy.
Objectives:
The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) assessing myocardial viability in patients with chronic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction due to coronary artery disease using 3 techniques: 1) end-diastolic wall thickness (EDWT); 2) low-dose dobutamine (LDD); and 3) contrast delayed enhancement (DE).
Background:
CMR has been proposed to assess myocardial viability over the past decade. However, the best CMR strategy to evaluate patients being contemplated for revascularization has not yet been determined. Some centers advocate DE CMR due to its high sensitivity to identify scar, whereas others favor the use of LDD CMR for its ability to identify contractile reserve.
Methods:
A systematic review of MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase for all the prospective trials assessing myocardial viability in subjects with chronic LV dysfunction using CMR was performed using a standard approach for meta-analysis for diagnostic tests and a bivariate analysis of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).
Results:
A total of 24 studies of CMR evaluating myocardial viability with 698 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies used DE, 9 studies used LDD, and 4 studies used EDWT. Our meta-analysis indicates that among CMR methods, DE CMR provides the highest sensitivity as well as the highest NPV (95% and 90%, respectively) for predicting improved segmental LV contractile function after revascularization, followed by EDWT CMR, whereas LDD CMR demonstrated the lowest sensitivity/NPV among all modalities. On the other hand, LDD CMR offered the highest specificity and PPV (91% and 93%, respectively), followed by DE CMR, whereas EDWT showed the lowest of these parameters.
Conclusions:
DE CMR provides the highest sensitivity and NPV, whereas LDD CMR provides the best specificity and PPV. In light of these findings, integrating these 2 methods should provide increased accuracy in evaluating patients with chronic LV dysfunction being considered for revascularization.
Related Concept Videos
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System IV: CMRI
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Cardiomyopathy IV: Restrictive Cardiomyopathy
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System V: CT
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System VI: Calcium -Scoring CT
Mitral Stenosis II: Clinical features and Diagnostic Tests
