Key result
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provides unique diagnostic information and comprehensive multiparametric assessment for patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.
Why the study?
Does cardiac magnetic resonance imaging improve diagnosis and management in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease?
Does cardiac magnetic resonance imaging improve diagnosis and management in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease?
CMR is a highly accurate, multiparametric imaging modality that provides unique diagnostic and prognostic information in patients with known or suspected CAD, often altering clinical management.
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is a useful diagnostic imaging modality in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). It provides unique information not available from other modalities, however, it is complex. CMR is not a single technique. Instead, it consists of multiple distinct techniques and a lack of understanding of which techniques to perform and how to interpret the findings in combination limits its efficacy and widespread use. Conversely, its multiparametric nature can provide a comprehensive assessment with the potential for higher accuracy than is achievable by other modalities. Moreover, its ability to directly assess myopathic processes often contributes insights that change patient management. In this article we provide a brief technical overview and focus on specific clinical scenarios in patients with known or suspected CAD. We highlight the multiparametric nature of CMR and discuss cases which illustrate the unique information that CMR can contribute.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chang et al. (2016) conducted a review in Coronary Artery Disease. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) was evaluated. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provides unique diagnostic information and comprehensive multiparametric assessment for patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: