OBJECTIVE: Despite a significant expansion in the use of cardiac MRI (CMR), there is inadequate evaluation of its incremental impact on clinical decision-making over and above other well-established modalities. We sought to determine the incremental utility of CMR in routine practice. METHODS: 629 consecutive CMR studies referred by 44 clinicians from 9 institutions were evaluated. Pre-defined algorithms were used to determine the incremental influence on diagnostic thinking, influence on clinical management and thus the overall clinical utility. Studies were also subdivided and evaluated according to the indication for CMR. RESULTS: CMR provided incremental information to the clinician in 85% of cases, with incremental influence on diagnostic thinking in 85% of cases and incremental impact on management in 42% of cases. The overall incremental utility of CMR exceeded 90% in 7 out of the 13 indications, whereas in settings such as the evaluation of unexplained ventricular arrhythmia or mild left ventricular systolic dysfunction, this was <50%. CONCLUSION: CMR was frequently able to inform and influence decision-making in routine clinical practice, even with analyses that accepted only incremental clinical information and excluded a redundant duplication of imaging. Significant variations in yield were noted according to the indication for CMR. These data support a wider integration of CMR services into cardiac imaging departments. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: These data are the first to objectively evaluate the incremental value of a UK CMR service in clinical decision-making. Such data are essential when seeking justification for a CMR service.
OBJECTIVE: Despite a significant expansion in the use of cardiac MRI (CMR), there is inadequate evaluation of its incremental impact on clinical decision-making over and above other well-established modalities. We sought to determine the incremental utility of CMR in routine practice. METHODS: 629 consecutive CMR studies referred by 44 clinicians from 9 institutions were evaluated. Pre-defined algorithms were used to determine the incremental influence on diagnostic thinking, influence on clinical management and thus the overall clinical utility. Studies were also subdivided and evaluated according to the indication for CMR. RESULTS: CMR provided incremental information to the clinician in 85% of cases, with incremental influence on diagnostic thinking in 85% of cases and incremental impact on management in 42% of cases. The overall incremental utility of CMR exceeded 90% in 7 out of the 13 indications, whereas in settings such as the evaluation of unexplained ventricular arrhythmia or mild left ventricular systolic dysfunction, this was <50%. CONCLUSION: CMR was frequently able to inform and influence decision-making in routine clinical practice, even with analyses that accepted only incremental clinical information and excluded a redundant duplication of imaging. Significant variations in yield were noted according to the indication for CMR. These data support a wider integration of CMR services into cardiac imaging departments. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: These data are the first to objectively evaluate the incremental value of a UK CMR service in clinical decision-making. Such data are essential when seeking justification for a CMR service.
Authors: G Scott Gazelle; Larry Kessler; David W Lee; Thomas McGinn; Joseph Menzin; Peter J Neumann; Derek van Amerongen; Leigh Ann White Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; Thomas H Marwick; William A Zoghbi; W Gregory Hundley; Christopher M Kramer; Stephan Achenbach; Vasken Dilsizian; Morton J Kern; Y Chandrashekhar; Jagat Narula Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-07
Authors: W Gregory Hundley; David A Bluemke; J Paul Finn; Scott D Flamm; Mark A Fogel; Matthias G Friedrich; Vincent B Ho; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Christopher M Kramer; Warren J Manning; Manesh Patel; Gerald M Pohost; Arthur E Stillman; Richard D White; Pamela K Woodard Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Frank I Marcus; William J McKenna; Duane Sherrill; Cristina Basso; Barbara Bauce; David A Bluemke; Hugh Calkins; Domenico Corrado; Moniek G P J Cox; James P Daubert; Guy Fontaine; Kathleen Gear; Richard Hauer; Andrea Nava; Michael H Picard; Nikos Protonotarios; Jeffrey E Saffitz; Danita M Yoerger Sanborn; Jonathan S Steinberg; Harikrishna Tandri; Gaetano Thiene; Jeffrey A Towbin; Adalena Tsatsopoulou; Thomas Wichter; Wojciech Zareba Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: J Jeffrey Carr; Robert C Hendel; Richard D White; Manesh R Patel; Michael J Wolk; Michael A Bettmann; Pamela Douglas; Frank J Rybicki; Christopher M Kramer; Pamela K Woodard; Leslee J Shaw; E Kent Yucel Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Simon Walker; François Girardin; Claire McKenna; Stephen G Ball; Jane Nixon; Sven Plein; John P Greenwood; Mark Sculpher Journal: Heart Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Siddique A Abbasi; Andrew Ertel; Ravi V Shah; Vineet Dandekar; Jaehoon Chung; Geetha Bhat; Ankit A Desai; Raymond Y Kwong; Afshin Farzaneh-Far Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: C Lücke; B Oppolzer; P Werner; B Foldyna; P Lurz; T Jochimsen; B Brenneis; L Lehmkuhl; B Sattler; M Grothoff; H Barthel; O Sabri; M Gutberlet Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Chen Chen; Wenjia Bai; Rhodri H Davies; Anish N Bhuva; Charlotte H Manisty; Joao B Augusto; James C Moon; Nay Aung; Aaron M Lee; Mihir M Sanghvi; Kenneth Fung; Jose Miguel Paiva; Steffen E Petersen; Elena Lukaschuk; Stefan K Piechnik; Stefan Neubauer; Daniel Rueckert Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2020-06-30