4.5 Article

30-minute CMR for common clinical indications: a Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance white paper

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12968-022-00844-6

关键词

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance; Magnetic resonance imaging; Cardiomyopathy; Ventricular arrhythmia; Ischemic heart disease; Myocarditis; Clinical practice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite evidence supporting the clinical utility of CMR, its adoption remains limited in many regions. Routine CMR protocols under 30 minutes can answer common clinical questions. Incorporating recent advances can facilitate increased access to CMR worldwide.
Background Despite decades of accruing evidence supporting the clinical utility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), adoption of CMR in routine cardiovascular practice remains limited in many regions of the world. Persistent use of long scan times of 60 min or more contributes to limited adoption, though techniques available on most scanners afford routine CMR examination within 30 min. Incorporating such techniques into standardize protocols can answer common clinical questions in daily practice, including those related to heart failure, cardiomyopathy, ventricular arrhythmia, ischemic heart disease, and non-ischemic myocardial injury. Body In this white paper, we describe CMR protocols of 30 min or shorter duration with routine techniques with or without stress perfusion, plus specific approaches in patient and scanner room preparation for efficiency. Minimum requirements for the scanner gradient system, coil hardware and pulse sequences are detailed. Recent advances such as quantitative myocardial mapping and other add-on acquisitions can be incorporated into the proposed protocols without significant extension of scan duration for most patients. Conclusion Common questions in clinical cardiovascular practice can be answered in routine CMR protocols under 30 min; their incorporation warrants consideration to facilitate increased access to CMR worldwide.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据