Key result
The rapid evolution of cardiac imaging techniques provides a wealth of diagnostic choices, requiring physicians to develop a broad perspective on their relative efficacy, costs, and drawbacks.
Highlights the rapid evolution of cardiac imaging techniques and the need for clinicians to understand their relative efficacy, costs, and drawbacks.
Clinicians must weigh imaging trade-offs in daily decisions; leaves open comparative effectiveness studies to guide selection.
Summary Imaging techniques are among the most commonly used diagnostic approaches to patients with heart and vascular diseases. Recently, sophisticated new methods of imaging the heart, great vessels, and pulmonary and peripheral vasculature have rapidly evolved. This evolution has occurred due to technological developments, research imperatives, and clinical needs. Current cardiac imaging methods give superb information on cardiac structure and function. The newer approaches to imaging promise to supply additional information on myocardial perfusion, metabolism, and tissue characteristics. The explosion of research and development in cardiac imaging gives the clinician and investigator a wealth of choices for evaluation of the heart. This wide array of choices requires that practicing physicians and echocardiogra‐phers develop a broad perspective on the relative efficacy, costs, and drawbacks associated with each of the diagnostic imaging procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David J. Skorton (1987) conducted a review in heart and vascular diseases. Cardiac imaging methods was evaluated. The rapid evolution of cardiac imaging techniques provides a wealth of diagnostic choices, requiring physicians to develop a broad perspective on their relative efficacy, costs, and drawbacks.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: