Key result
Contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging allows accurate diagnosis and tissue characterization of non-ischemic cardiomyopathies, potentially avoiding the need for endomyocardial biopsy.
Contrast-enhanced CMR is a comprehensive, non-invasive tool for diagnosing and characterizing non-ischemic cardiomyopathies, potentially reducing the need for endomyocardial biopsy.
CMR may support non-invasive evaluation of non-ischemic cardiomyopathies; leaves open need for prospective validation before reducing biopsies.
Cardio-vascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) can be used to obtain integrated information on both cardiac function and on advanced tissue characteristics. Using contrast-enhanced techniques, highly diagnostic information on tissue viability, inflammatory changes, and on storage diseases can be obtained within a 45-minute examination. The combination of functional information (using steady-state free precession sequences cine techniques), assessment of myocardial edema (using T2-based techniques), of reversible injury (for example in inflammatory diseases; using T1-based techniques), and irreversible injury (for example in infarction and regional fibrosis, using late gadolinium enhancement techniques) allows disease-specific and prognostic information to be obtained in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Contrast-enhanced CMR allows the accurate diagnosis of non-ischemic cardiomyopathies, identification of primary and secondary cardiomyopathies, and can be used to guide therapy, thus avoiding the need for invasive measures such as endomyocardial biopsy in many cases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shehab et al. (2010) conducted a review in Non-ischemic cardiomyopathies. Contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) was evaluated. Contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging allows accurate diagnosis and tissue characterization of non-ischemic cardiomyopathies, potentially avoiding the need for endomyocardial biopsy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: