Why the study?
Does cardiac MRI improve the evaluation of cardiac and paracardiac masses compared to echocardiography in suspected patients?
Observational (n=14)
Does cardiac MRI improve the evaluation of cardiac and paracardiac masses compared to echocardiography in suspected patients?
Echocardiography and MRI provide complementary diagnostic information and should be used together for the comprehensive evaluation of cardiac and paracardiac masses.
Hypothesis-generating for complementary cardiac imaging in lung tumors; prospective validation needed before clinical adoption.
The objective of this study was to compare the roles of echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of patients suspected of having cardiac and paracardiac masses. Echocardiography is a widely available and useful technique for characterizing cardiac and paracardiac abnormalities but suffers from a limited field of view and restricted acoustic access to mediastinal structures. MRI is an alternative noninvasive imaging technique for investigation of these abnormalities. Fourteen consecutive patients suspected of having cardiac or paracardiac masses on echocardiography were referred for cardiac MRI. MRI gave more complete visualization in four patients with infiltrating lung tumors and in one patient with intracardiac metastases who had a technically inadequate echo. Echo showed a rapidly moving Chiari network not seen on MRI. Both echo and MRI were helpful in patients with hiatal hernias (2); lipomatous hypertrophy of the interatrial septum (2); left atrial myxoma (1); and calcified mitral annulus (3). We conclude that echocardiography and MRI should be used together to investigate patients with cardiac and paracardiac masses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wann et al. (1998) conducted an observational in Suspected cardiac and paracardiac masses (n=14). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) vs. Echocardiography was evaluated on Visualization and evaluation of cardiac and paracardiac masses.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: