Stress Testing and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details. Identifier: NCT00871260
Recruitment Status : Recruiting
First Posted : March 30, 2009
Last Update Posted : August 24, 2016
Astellas Pharma Inc
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
University of Chicago

March 24, 2009
March 30, 2009
August 24, 2016
April 2009
April 2020   (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Major adverse cardiovascular events such as death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, congestive heart failure, or cerebral vascular accident. [ Time Frame: 3 years ]
Same as current
Complete list of historical versions of study NCT00871260 on Archive Site
  • Relationship between SPECT and CMR results of myocardial perfusion imaging [ Time Frame: 1 year ]
  • Optimization of coronary imaging using CMR [ Time Frame: 1 year ]
Same as current
Not Provided
Not Provided
Stress Testing and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance
Stress Testing and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance
The purpose of this study is to better define the role of a comprehensive stress MRI (which includes myocardial perfusion imaging, optimized coronary imaging, and myocardial scar imaging) in medical practice and in patient health management. Information gathered from the healthy volunteers that participate in this study will be compared to information from the coronary artery disease patients in this study in order to help further our understanding.

Coronary artery disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Currently, the presence of physiologically significant coronary disease is most commonly diagnosed using non-invasive imaging tests such as a nuclear stress test or an echo stress test. Unfortunately, nuclear stress tests require the use of ionizing radiation and have a limited spatial resolution. On the other hand, echo stress tests are dependent of adequate imaging windows. Adenosine stress testing combined with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is a rapidly evolving technique for diagnosing significant coronary disease. It does not use ionizing radiation and has excellent image quality. In a recent meta-analysis of 14 studies with a total of 1,183 patients, the sensitivity and specificity of stress CMR for detecting significant coronary disease was 91% and 81%. Additionally, 2 studies have shown that patients with a normal stress CMR study have a <1% risk of having a cardiovascular event during the ensuing year. Another important advantage to stress CMR is the ability to fully quantify myocardial blood flow which may improve the diagnostic accuracy of stress CMR. In addition to perfusion imaging, CMR can directly visualize the coronary arteries, detect extremely small myocardial infarctions, and precisely measure the left ventricular function.

Although adenosine stress CMR is a rapidly maturing test, several important challenges exist. First, many patients find it difficult to tolerate the common side effects of adenosine in the confined space of the MRI scanner. Secondly, many patients under the influence of adenosine and its side effects cannot adequately hold their breath during image acquisition making image interpretation more difficult and quantitative analysis very time consuming. Finally, because adenosine must be continuously infused during a contrast-enhanced stress CMR, 2 separate intravenous (I.V.) catheters are needed. Most of the undesirable effects of adenosine are mediated through the adenosine A(2B) and A(3) receptors; where as, its desired vasodilator effects are mediated through the A(2A) receptor. The FDA recently approved an adenosine A(2A) receptor specific stress testing agent called regadenoson which is administered as a 10 second bolus and has an improved side effect and safety profile when compared to adenosine. With its improved tolerability and ease of use, regadenoson is a more ideal stress testing agent to use with CMR.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether a comprehensive regadenoson stress cardiac magnetic resonance study which includes myocardial perfusion imaging, optimized coronary imaging, and myocardial scar imaging provides incremental prognostic information over a clinical evaluation that includes nuclear stress testing.

Not Applicable
Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
Coronary Disease
Drug: regadenoson
Subjects in open label group will be given a single dose of regadenoson (0.4 mg, i.e. 5 ml i.v. bolus) as contrast.
Other Name: Lexiscan
Open Label
Approximately 25 healthy volunteers will be recruited as controls, and approximately 500 patients with suspected coronary artery disease be recruited. Scan will be done with regadenoson contrast.
Intervention: Drug: regadenoson

*   Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
Same as current
April 2020
April 2020   (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Suspected coronary artery disease
  • Symptoms of possible coronary artery disease

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction
  • Second or third degree AV block
  • Severe Renal Disease (GFR <30cc/min or hemodialysis)
  • Contra-indications to MRI (i.e. ICD, pacemaker, aneurysm clip, etc)
  • Hemodynamic instability
  • Inability to provide informed consent
  • Severe claustrophobia
  • Pregnancy
  • Age <18 years
Sexes Eligible for Study: All
18 Years and older   (Adult, Senior)
Contact: Amit Patel, M.D. 773-702-1843
United States
Not Provided
Not Provided
University of Chicago
University of Chicago
Astellas Pharma Inc
Principal Investigator: Amit Patel, M.D. University of Chicago
University of Chicago
August 2016

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP