scholarly journals Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in women with cardiovascular disease: position statement from the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR)

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen G. Ordovas ◽  
Lauren A. Baldassarre ◽  
Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci ◽  
James Carr ◽  
Juliano Lara Fernandes ◽  
...  

AbstractThis document is a position statement from the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) on recommendations for clinical utilization of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in women with cardiovascular disease. The document was prepared by the SCMR Consensus Group on CMR Imaging for Female Patients with Cardiovascular Disease and endorsed by the SCMR Publications Committee and SCMR Executive Committee. The goals of this document are to (1) guide the informed selection of cardiovascular imaging methods, (2) inform clinical decision-making, (3) educate stakeholders on the advantages of CMR in specific clinical scenarios, and (4) empower patients with clinical evidence to participate in their clinical care. The statements of clinical utility presented in the current document pertain to the following clinical scenarios: acute coronary syndrome, stable ischemic heart disease, peripartum cardiomyopathy, cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction, aortic syndrome and congenital heart disease in pregnancy, bicuspid aortic valve and aortopathies, systemic rheumatic diseases and collagen vascular disorders, and cardiomyopathy-causing mutations. The authors cite published evidence when available and provide expert consensus otherwise. Most of the evidence available pertains to translational studies involving subjects of both sexes. However, the authors have prioritized review of data obtained from female patients, and direct comparison of CMR between women and men. This position statement does not consider CMR accessibility or availability of local expertise, but instead highlights the optimal utilization of CMR in women with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. Finally, the ultimate goal of this position statement is to improve the health of female patients with cardiovascular disease by providing specific recommendations on the use of CMR.

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 819-838 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.R. Valsangiacomo Buechel ◽  
L. Grosse-Wortmann ◽  
S. Fratz ◽  
J. Eichhorn ◽  
S. Sarikouch ◽  
...  

This article provides expert opinion on the use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in young patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) and in specific clinical situations. As peculiar challenges apply to imaging children, paediatric aspects are repeatedly discussed. The first section of the paper addresses settings and techniques, including the basic sequences used in paediatric CMR, safety, and sedation. In the second section, the indication, application, and clinical relevance of CMR in the most frequent CHD are discussed in detail. In the current era of multimodality imaging, the strengths of CMR are compared with other imaging modalities. At the end of each chapter, a brief summary with expert consensus key points is provided. The recommendations provided are strongly clinically oriented. The paper addresses not only imagers performing CMR, but also clinical cardiologists who want to know which information can be obtained by CMR and how to integrate it in clinical decision-making.


2021 ◽  
Vol 126 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-379
Author(s):  
Gianluca Pontone ◽  
Ernesto Di Cesare ◽  
Silvia Castelletti ◽  
Francesco De Cobelli ◽  
Manuel De Lazzari ◽  
...  

AbstractCardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has emerged as new mainstream technique for the evaluation of patients with cardiac diseases, providing unique information to support clinical decision-making. This document has been developed by a joined group of experts of the Italian Society of Cardiology and Italian society of Radiology and aims to produce an updated consensus statement about the current state of technology and clinical applications of CMR. The writing committee consisted of members and experts of both societies who worked jointly to develop a more integrated approach in the field of cardiac radiology. Part 1 of the document will cover ischemic heart disease, congenital heart disease, cardio-oncology, cardiac masses and heart transplant.


Lupus ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 564-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Mavrogeni ◽  
L Koutsogeorgopoulou ◽  
G Markousis-Mavrogenis ◽  
A Bounas ◽  
M Tektonidou ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-42
Author(s):  
Sven Plein ◽  
Bara Erhayiem ◽  
Graham Fent ◽  
Jacqueline Andrews ◽  
John Greenwood ◽  
...  

Background The VEDERA (Very Early vs. Delayed Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis) randomised controlled trial compared the effect of conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (csDMARD) therapy with biologic DMARD (bDMARD) therapy using the tumour necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept in treatment-naive, early rheumatoid arthritis patients. The CADERA (Coronary Artery Disease Evaluation in Rheumatoid Arthritis) trial was a bolt-on study in which VEDERA patients underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging to detect preclinical cardiovascular disease at baseline and following treatment. Objectives To evaluate whether or not patients with treatment-naive early rheumatoid arthritis have evidence of cardiovascular disease compared with matched control subjects; whether or not this is modifiable with DMARD therapy; and whether or not bDMARDs confer advantages over csDMARDs. Design The VEDERA patients underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and at 1 and 2 years after treatment. Setting The setting was a tertiary centre rheumatology outpatient clinic and specialist cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging unit. Participants Eighty-one patients completed all assessments at baseline, 71 completed all assessments at 1 year and 56 completed all assessments at 2 years. Patients had no history of cardiovascular disease, had had rheumatoid arthritis symptoms for ≤ 1 year, were DMARD treatment-naive and had a minimum Disease Activity Score-28 of 3.2. Thirty control subjects without cardiovascular disease were approximately individually matched by age and sex to the first 30 CADERA patients. Patients with a Disease Activity Score-28 of ≥ 2.6 at 48 weeks were considered non-responders. Interventions In the VEDERA trial patients were randomised to group 1, immediate etanercept and methotrexate, or group 2, methotrexate ± additional csDMARD therapy in a treat-to-target approach, with a switch to delayed etanercept and methotrexate in the event of failure to achieve clinical remission at 6 months. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was difference in baseline aortic distensibility between control subjects and the early rheumatoid arthritis group and the baseline to year 1 change in aortic distensibility in the early rheumatoid arthritis group. Secondary outcome measures were myocardial perfusion reserve, left ventricular strain and twist, left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular mass. Results Baseline aortic distensibility [geometric mean (95% confidence interval)] was significantly reduced in patients (n = 81) compared with control subjects (n = 30) [3.0 × 10–3/mmHg (2.7 × 10–3/mmHg to 3.3 × 10–3/mmHg) vs. 4.4 × 10–3/mmHg (3.7 × 10–3/mmHg to 5.2 × 10–3/mmHg), respectively; p < 0.001]. Aortic distensibility [geometric mean (95% confidence interval)] improved significantly from baseline to year 1 across the whole patient cohort (n = 81, with imputation for missing values) [3.0 × 10–3/mmHg (2.7 × 10–3/mmHg to 3.4 × 10–3/mmHg) vs. 3.6 × 10–3/mmHg (3.1 × 10–3/mmHg to 4.1 × 10–3/mmHg), respectively; p < 0.001]. No significant difference in aortic distensibility improvement between baseline and year 1 was seen in the following comparisons (geometric means): group 1 (n = 40 at baseline) versus group 2 (n = 41 at baseline): 3.8 × 10–3/mmHg versus 3.4 × 10–3/mmHg, p = 0.49; combined groups 1 and 2 non-responders (n = 38) versus combined groups 1 and 2 responders (n = 43): 3.5 × 10–3/mmHg versus 3.6 × 10–3/mmHg, p = 0.87; group 1 non-responders (n = 17) versus group 1 responders (n = 23): 3.6 × 10–3/mmHg versus 3.9 × 10–3/mmHg, p = 0.73. There was a trend towards a 10–30% difference in aortic distensibility between (group 1) responders who received first-line etanercept (n = 23) and (group 2) responders who never received etanercept (n = 13): 3.9 × 10–3/mmHg versus 2.8 × 10–3/mmHg, p = 0.19; ratio 0.7 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 1.2), p = 0.19; ratio adjusted for baseline aortic distensibility 0.8 (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.2), p = 0.29; ratio fully adjusted for baseline characteristics 0.9 (95% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.4), p = 0.56. Conclusions The CADERA establishes evidence of the vascular changes in early rheumatoid arthritis compared with controls and shows improvement of vascular changes with rheumatoid arthritis DMARD therapy. Response to rheumatoid arthritis therapy does not add further to modification of cardiovascular disease but, within the response to either strategy, etanercept/methotrexate may confer greater benefits over standard methotrexate/csDMARD therapy. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN89222125 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01295151. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership, and will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 8, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Pfizer Inc. (New York, NY, USA) supported the parent study, VEDERA, through an investigator-sponsored research grant reference WS1092499.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Knesewitsch ◽  
Christian Meierhofer ◽  
Henrike Rieger ◽  
Jürgen Rößler ◽  
Michael Frank ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document