Why the study?
CMR protocols can be lengthy and complex, driving the development of new technologies to make protocols more efficient and patient-friendly.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Comparison
All-in-one CMR vs real-time CMR approaches
Design
Review manuscript
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Real-time CMR may shorten scans and improve tolerability; leaves open needs for clinical validation and standardization.
Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) protocols can be lengthy and complex, which has driven the research community to develop new technologies to make these protocols more efficient and patient-friendly. Two different approaches to improving CMR have been proposed, specifically "all-in-one" CMR, where several contrasts and/or motion states are acquired simultaneously, and "real-time" CMR, in which the examination is accelerated to avoid the need for breathholding and/or cardiac gating. The goal of this two-part manuscript is to describe these two different types of emerging rapid CMR protocols. To this end, the vision of all-in-one and real-time imaging are described, along with techniques which have been devised and tested along the pathway of clinical implementation. The pros and cons of the different methods are presented, and the remaining open needs of each are detailed. Part 1 tackles the "All-in-One" approaches, and Part 2 focuses on the "Real-Time" approaches along with an overall summary of these emerging methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Contijoch et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: