dc.contributor.author
von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, Florian
dc.contributor.author
Pilz, Guenter
dc.contributor.author
Schulz-Menger, Jeanette
dc.date.accessioned
2018-06-08T10:56:29Z
dc.date.available
2017-10-18T11:05:16.185Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/21369
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-24663
dc.description.abstract
Background Whereas evidence supporting the diagnostic value of cardiovascular
magnetic resonance (CMR) has increased, there exists significant worldwide
variability in the clinical utilization of CMR. A recent study demonstrated
that CMR is represented in the majority of European Society for Cardiology
(ESC) guidelines, with a large number of specific recommendations in
particular regarding coronary artery disease. To further investigate the gap
between the evidence and clinical use of CMR, this study analyzed the role of
CMR in the guidelines of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American
Heart Association (AHA). Methods Twenty-four AHA/ACC original guidelines,
updates and new editions, published between 2006 and 2017, were screened for
the terms “magnetic”, “MRI”, “CMR”, “MR” and “imaging”. Non-cardiovascular MR
examinations were excluded. All CMR-related paragraphs and specific
recommendations for CMR including the level of evidence (A, B, C) and the
class of recommendation (I, IIa, IIb, III) were extracted. Results Twelve of
the 24 guidelines (50.0%) contain specific recommendations regarding CMR. Four
guidelines (16.7%) mention CMR in the text only, and 8 (33.3%) do not mention
CMR. The 12 guidelines with recommendations for CMR contain in total 65
specific recommendations (31 class-I, 23 class-IIa, 6 class-IIb, 5 class-III).
Most recommendations have evidence level C (44/65; 67.7%), followed by level B
(21/65; 32.3%). There are no level A recommendations. 22/65 recommendations
refer to vascular imaging, 17 to congenital heart disease, 8 to
cardiomyopathies, 8 to myocardial stress testing, 5 to left and right
ventricular function, 3 to viability, and 2 to valvular heart disease.
Conclusions CMR is represented in two thirds of the AHA/ACC guidelines, which
contain a number of specific recommendations for the use of CMR. In a
simplified comparison with the ESC guidelines, CMR is less represented in the
AHA/ACC guidelines in particular in the field of coronary artery disease.
en
dc.rights.uri
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject
Cardiac magnetic resonance
dc.subject.ddc
600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften::610 Medizin und Gesundheit
dc.title
Representation of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the AHA / ACC
guidelines
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dcterms.bibliographicCitation
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. - 19 (2017), Artikel Nr.70
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.1186/s12968-017-0385-z
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.url
http://jcmr-online.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12968-017-0385-z
refubium.affiliation
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
de
refubium.mycore.fudocsId
FUDOCS_document_000000028339
refubium.note.author
Der Artikel wurde in einer reinen Open-Access-Zeitschrift publiziert.
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
refubium.mycore.derivateId
FUDOCS_derivate_000000009009
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access