PURPOSE: To assess prevalence and significance of extra cardiac findings (ECF) in clinical routine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) studies reported by cardiologists alone versus cardiologist and radiologist working together. METHODS: One-thousand-seventy-four consecutive patients presenting at our institution for CMR work-up of multiple cardiovascular disease entities were enrolled retrospectively in two groups (cardiologists reading alone vs. cardiologists and radiologist reading together). RESULTS: In 1,074 routine CMR studies a total of 357 ECF's were identified in 235 patients yielding a prevalence of 21.9 %. Of these 357 ECF's more than one-third were previously known. In the remaining 223 previously unknown findings 118 (52.9 %) were considered as major ECF's (92 patients), and 105 (47.1 %) were considered as minor ECF's (69 patients). Cardiologists reading alone reported 23 previously unknown ECF's in 23 patients, versus 200 previously unknown ECF in 138 patients by cardiologists and radiologists working together, p < 0.0001. Nevertheless, highly significant ECF's with major prognostic implications, such as the initial diagnosis of malignancy in an individual with no history of cancer, are extremely rare (n = 3, 0.3 %). Cardiologists alone, as well as cardiologists and radiologists working together seem to do well with reporting of such extremely important ECF's. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of all ECF's was 21.9 %, and 14.9 % of previously unknown ECF's, respectively. However, the prevalence of highly significant ECF's was low. Joint reading with cardiologists and radiologists may increase the number of ECF's detected in CMR studies, but it remains unclear if this could result in an improved long-term outcome of patients undergoing routine CMR.
PURPOSE: To assess prevalence and significance of extra cardiac findings (ECF) in clinical routine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) studies reported by cardiologists alone versus cardiologist and radiologist working together. METHODS: One-thousand-seventy-four consecutive patients presenting at our institution for CMR work-up of multiple cardiovascular disease entities were enrolled retrospectively in two groups (cardiologists reading alone vs. cardiologists and radiologist reading together). RESULTS: In 1,074 routine CMR studies a total of 357 ECF's were identified in 235 patients yielding a prevalence of 21.9 %. Of these 357 ECF's more than one-third were previously known. In the remaining 223 previously unknown findings 118 (52.9 %) were considered as major ECF's (92 patients), and 105 (47.1 %) were considered as minor ECF's (69 patients). Cardiologists reading alone reported 23 previously unknown ECF's in 23 patients, versus 200 previously unknown ECF in 138 patients by cardiologists and radiologists working together, p < 0.0001. Nevertheless, highly significant ECF's with major prognostic implications, such as the initial diagnosis of malignancy in an individual with no history of cancer, are extremely rare (n = 3, 0.3 %). Cardiologists alone, as well as cardiologists and radiologists working together seem to do well with reporting of such extremely important ECF's. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of all ECF's was 21.9 %, and 14.9 % of previously unknown ECF's, respectively. However, the prevalence of highly significant ECF's was low. Joint reading with cardiologists and radiologists may increase the number of ECF's detected in CMR studies, but it remains unclear if this could result in an improved long-term outcome of patients undergoing routine CMR.
Authors: Igor Klem; John F Heitner; Dipan J Shah; Michael H Sketch; Victor Behar; Jonathan Weinsaft; Peter Cawley; Michele Parker; Michael Elliott; Robert M Judd; Raymond J Kim Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-03-27 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: O P Simonetti; R J Kim; D S Fieno; H B Hillenbrand; E Wu; J M Bundy; J P Finn; R M Judd Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Heiko Mahrholdt; Anja Wagner; Thomas A Holly; Michael D Elliott; Robert O Bonow; Raymond J Kim; Robert M Judd Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Christoph I Lee; Emily B Tsai; Bronislava M Sigal; Sylvia K Plevritis; Alan M Garber; Geoffrey D Rubin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Peter G Chan; Martin P Smith; Thomas H Hauser; Susan B Yeon; Evan Appelbaum; Neil M Rofsky; Warren J Manning Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-08
Authors: Felix C Sokolowski; Philipp Karius; Alejandra Rodríguez; Alexander Lembcke; Moritz Wagner; Bernd Hamm; Marc Dewey Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jonathan C L Rodrigues; Stephen M Lyen; William Loughborough; Antonio Matteo Amadu; Anna Baritussio; Amardeep Ghosh Dastidar; Nathan E Manghat; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 5.364