Comparing prognostic significance of dual bolus and dual sequence quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance
Open Access
- 4 December 2025
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging
- Vol. 27 (3) , 544-553
Abstract
Aims: Quantitative stress perfusion (QP) cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can be performed using the dual sequence (DS) or dual bolus (DB) technique. DS does not require additional contrast and image acquisition but needs a research sequence. DB can be performed on all magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners with standard perfusion sequences but requires additional contrast injection and image acquisition. Our aim was to compare the prognostic significance of DB and DS. Methods and Results: DB and DS were performed on the same patient and the same examination. Analysts were blinded to clinical outcomes. Stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) were quantified. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) comprising acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, late revascularization, and all-cause death. 570 patients (mean age: 63.2 ± 12.3 years; 61.2% male) were recruited. Median follow-up was 743 days; 54 events were documented. All QP CMR variables demonstrated significance in univariate Cox regression [DB stress MBF [HR = 0.53 (95%CI:0.35–0.78)], DB MPR [HR = 0.38 (95%CI:0.22–0.66)], DS stress MBF [HR = 0.27 (95%CI:0.18–0.40)] and DS MPR [HR = 0.19 (95%CI:0.13–0.29)]]. On multivariable Cox regression models, only DB MPR, DS MBF, and DS MPR remained significant for MACE (HR = 0.50 (95%CI:0.28–0.89), HR = 0.35 (95%CI:0.23–0.53); HR = 0.23 (95%CI 0.15–0.36), respectively). Harrell’s C-index of DS MPR and DS stress MBF showed significantly better prognostication than their DB counterparts (P < 0.001 and P = 0.012, respectively). Conclusion: In this blinded comparison, DS stress MBF and MPR demonstrated better prognostication than DB stress MBF and MPR. Our findings support DS as the preferred approach where available.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance expert consensus statement on quantitative myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imagingJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2025
- Assessing microvascular dysfunction and predicting long-term prognosis in patients with cardiac amyloidosis by cardiovascular magnetic resonance quantitative stress perfusionJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2024
- Myocardial Blood Flow Quantification Using Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Improves Detection of Coronary Artery DiseaseJACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 2024
- Comparison of dual-bolus versus dual-sequence techniques for determining myocardial blood flow and myocardial perfusion reserve by cardiac magnetic resonance stress perfusion: From the Automated Quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion cardiac Magnetic Resonance ConsortiumJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2024
- Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion Predicts Outcomes in Patients With Prior Surgical RevascularizationJACC, 2022
- Long-Term Prognosis of Patients With Coronary Microvascular Disease Using Stress Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic ResonanceJACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 2021
- Automated Pixel-Wise Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion Mapping by CMR to Detect Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease and Coronary Microvascular DysfunctionJACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 2019
- Microvascular Dysfunction in Dilated CardiomyopathyJACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 2019
- Prognostic Value of Quantitative Stress Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic ResonanceJACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 2018
- Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Perfusion Imaging at 3-Tesla for the Detection of Coronary Artery DiseaseJACC, 2007