scholarly journals Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2020 Case of the Week series

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason N. Johnson ◽  
Jason G. Mandell ◽  
Adam Christopher ◽  
Laura J. Olivieri ◽  
Yue-Hin Loke ◽  
...  

AbstractThe Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) is an international society focused on the research, education, and clinical application of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Case of the week is a case series hosted on the SCMR website (https://www.scmr.org) that demonstrates the utility and importance of CMR in the clinical diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease. Each case consists of the clinical presentation and a discussion of the condition and the role of CMR in diagnosis and guiding clinical management. The cases are all instructive and helpful in the approach to patient management. We present a digital archive of the 2020 Case of the Week series of 11 cases as a means of further enhancing the education of those interested in CMR and as a means of more readily identifying these cases using a PubMed or similar search engine.

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arun Dahiya ◽  
Charles Chao ◽  
John Younger ◽  
Julia Kar ◽  
Bryant M. Baldwin ◽  
...  

AbstractThe Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) is an international society focused on the research, education, and clinical application of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). The SCMR web site (https://www.scmr.org) hosts a case series designed to present case reports demonstrating the unique attributes of CMR in the diagnosis or management of cardiovascular disease. Each clinical presentation is followed by a brief discussion of the disease and unique role of CMR in disease diagnosis or management guidance. By nature, some of these are somewhat esoteric, but all are instructive. In this publication, we provide a digital archive of the 2019 Case of the Week series as a means of further enhancing the education of those interested in CMR and as a means of more readily identifying these cases using a PubMed or similar search engine.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Pavon ◽  
C Chautems ◽  
Y Odin ◽  
D Arangalage ◽  
T Rutz ◽  
...  

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background the role of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance has gained the more and more importance in the field of cardiovascular disease. Claustrophobia remains a frequent cause of failure to complete a CMR. It is estimated that 2 million scans worldwide cannot be performed annually either due to premature termination or refusal of the patient to be scanned due to claustrophobia. In this setting, medical hypnosis may prove useful to overcome this main limitation. Methods we propose an observational study of consecutive patients referred to CMR and known for severe claustrophobia. Patients were proposed to undergo CMR examination with the help of medical hypnosis according to Milton H. Erickson’s method or with administration of mild sedation (lorazepam 2.5 mg). Results 20 severe claustrophobic patients were considered in the study. 1 patient was excluded due to psychiatric condition, 1 patient undergo to general anesthesia, 5 patients refused the examination. Among the 13 patients, 10 underwent medical hypnosis while 3 patients accepted to undergo to CMR examination with the administration of lorazepam 2.5 mg. All patients treated with medical hypnosis were able to complete the examination with a great tolerance and no sign of stress or anxiety were reported. CMR protocol was performed according to clinical request and was not different form non-claustrophobic patients. None of the patients treated with lorazepam 2.5mg was able to complete the exam. Conclusion we prove medical hypnosis to be safe and effective in controlling patients’ anxiety, allowing optimal diagnostic imaging quality without the need to adapt the examination. Further studies in larger populations are needed to confirm our results.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document