Key result
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is superior to echocardiography for assessing left ventricular function and detecting myocardial fibrosis to predict adverse events in heart failure.
Why the study?
The role of MRI in the etiological and prognostic evaluation of heart failure is much discussed.
Does cardiac magnetic resonance imaging improve the prognostic evaluation and prediction of adverse events in patients with heart failure compared to echocardiography?
Does cardiac magnetic resonance imaging improve the prognostic evaluation and prediction of adverse events in patients with heart failure compared to echocardiography?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provides superior diagnostic and prognostic value compared to echocardiography in patients with heart failure, particularly through the detection of myocardial fibrosis.
Introduction: the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in heart failure (HF) is much discussed, both in the etiological and prognostic evaluation of this disease. Therefore, a description of the usefulness of MRI would show us its role in the evaluation of prognosis in patients with HF of various etiologies. Aim: to describe the usefulness of MRI for the evaluation of prognosis in patients with HF of various etiologies. Methodology: a narrative literature review was carried out by means of a search in databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Elsevier and Springer (BMC). Results: cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is superior to echocardiography in assessing left ventricular volumes and function with better reproducibility, also when analyzing systolic abnormalities and characterizing viable myocardial tissue, as well as that with the presence of myocardial fibrosis. Precisely, the detection of myocardial fibrosis has a predictive value for adverse events in patients with HF. Conclusion: CMR is useful to identify previously undetected pathology and pathologies that are difficult to diagnose. Thus, its use is associated with better diagnostic performance and, therefore, a better predictor of adverse events in patients with HF
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aveiga et al. (2023) conducted a review in Heart failure. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging vs. Echocardiography was evaluated on Adverse events. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is superior to echocardiography for assessing left ventricular function and detecting myocardial fibrosis to predict adverse events in heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: