Key result
Cardiac magnetic resonance alone had a diagnostic sensitivity of 67% compared to 79% for endomyocardial biopsy, but achieved 97% sensitivity when combined with clinical data and echocardiography.
Why the study?
Does cardiac magnetic resonance provide comparable diagnostic capability to endomyocardial biopsy in patients with heart failure?
Population
136 patients with heart failure and cardiomyopathy who underwent both cardiac magnetic resonance and…
Comparison
Cardiac magnetic resonance alone or in… vs Endomyocardial biopsy alone or in combination…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
May improve non-invasive diagnostic yield in heart failure when combined with clinical data and echocardiography; leaves open whether it replaces endomyocardial biopsy.
Cross-Sectional (n=136)
Does cardiac magnetic resonance provide comparable diagnostic capability to endomyocardial biopsy in patients with heart failure?
Absolute Event Rate: 67% vs 79%
Non-invasive cardiac magnetic resonance combined with clinical data and echocardiography provides excellent diagnostic accuracy for heart failure, comparable to strategies involving invasive endomyocardial biopsy.
Yoshida et al. (2013) conducted a cross-sectional in Heart failure / Cardiomyopathy (n=136). Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) vs. Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) was evaluated on Sensitivity relative to the final diagnosis. Cardiac magnetic resonance alone had a diagnostic sensitivity of 67% compared to 79% for endomyocardial biopsy, but achieved 97% sensitivity when combined with clinical data and echocardiography.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: