Feasibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance to detect oxygenation deficits in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease triggered by breathing maneuvers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyperventilation with a subsequent breath-hold has been successfully used as a non-pharmacological vasoactive stimulus to induce changes in myocardial oxygenation. The purpose of this pilot study was to assess if this maneuver is feasible in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD), and if it is effective at detecting coronary artery stenosis > 50% determined by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). METHODS: Twenty-six patients with coronary artery stenosis (QCA > 50% diameter stenosis) underwent a contrast-free cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) exam in the time interval between their primary coronary angiography and a subsequent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, n = 24) or coronary artery bypass (CABG, n = 2) revascularization procedure. The CMR exam involved standard function imaging, myocardial strain analysis, T2 mapping, native T1 mapping and oxygenation-sensitive CMR (OS-CMR) imaging. During OS-CMR, participants performed a paced hyperventilation for 60s followed by a breath-hold to induce a vasoactive stimulus. Ten healthy subjects underwent the CMR protocol as the control group. RESULTS: All CAD patients completed the breathing maneuvers with an average breath-hold duration of 48 ± 23 s following hyperventilation and without any complications or adverse effects. In comparison to healthy subjects, CAD patients had a significantly attenuated global myocardial oxygenation response to both hyperventilation (- 9.6 ± 6.8% vs. -3.1 ± 6.5%, p = 0.012) and apnea (11.3 ± 6.1% vs. 2.1 ± 4.4%, p < 0.001). The breath-hold maneuver unmasked regional oxygenation differences in territories subtended by a stenotic coronary artery in comparison to remote territory within the same patient (0.5 ± 3.8 vs. 3.8 ± 5.3%, p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Breathing maneuvers in conjunction with OS-CMR are clinically feasible in CAD patients. Furthermore, OS-CMR demonstrates myocardial oxygenation abnormalities in regional myocardium related to CAD without the use of pharmacologic vasodilators or contrast agents. A larger trial appears warranted for a better understanding of its diagnostic utility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT02233634 , registered 8 September 2014.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".