This consensus document establishes CMR as a versatile, accurate, and reproducible standard of reference for evaluating cardiac structure, function, and tissue composition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“A criticism of the document is its tendency to present applications with less widespread use with the same level of enthusiasm as areas where CMR has widespread utility. These areas include the use of CMR for assessment of coronary atherosclerotic disease. Although CMR is widely used for determination of anomalous origin of the coronary arteries, there are relatively few centers where coronary CMR is performed, and considerable research needs to be done before coronary artery MRI is a reasonable tool for the complete evaluation of the coronary arteries and accurate assessment of coronary artery bypass graft status.”
“Until a decade ago, CMR was considered mostly a research tool, and scans for clinical purpose were rare. With technical advances in hardware and software, CMR is now considered a powerful tool to assess ventricular function, cardiac morphology, perfusion, viability and metabolism, as well as the vasculature. All of this imaging is possible without the need for ionizing radiation, and with high resolution in three dimensions. CMR is now a highly attractive first-line test for routine clinical indications such as the evaluation of ischemic heart disease and nonischemic cardiomyopathies.”
Positions CMR as the noninvasive reference for cardiac structure and function; confirms high accuracy and extends standardization across centers.
Hundley et al. (2010) conducted a review in Cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) was evaluated. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance provides highly accurate and reproducible assessment of cardiac morphology, function, perfusion, and tissue characterization across a wide spectrum of cardiovascular diseases.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: