20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging expert consensus paper: a comprehensive review of cardiovascular magnetic resonance normal values of cardiac chamber size and aortic root in adults and recommendations for grading severity

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This consensus paper provides a framework for grading of severity of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging-based assessment of chamber size, function, and aortic measurements. This does not currently exist for CMR measures. Differences exist in the normal reference values between echocardiography and CMR along with differences in methods used to derive these. We feel that this document will significantly complement the current literature and provide a practical guide for clinicians in daily reporting and interpretation of CMR scans. This manuscript aims to complement a recent comprehensive review of CMR normal value publications to recommend cut-off values required for severity grading. Standardization of severity grading for clinically useful CMR parameters is encouraged to lead to clearer and easier communication with referring clinicians and may contribute to better patient care. To this end, the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) has formed this expert panel that has critically reviewed the literature and has come to a consensus on approaches to severity grading for commonly quantified CMR parameters.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Reference ranges for cardiac structure and function using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in Caucasians from the UK Biobank population cohort

          Background Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is the gold standard method for the assessment of cardiac structure and function. Reference ranges permit differentiation between normal and pathological states. To date, this study is the largest to provide CMR specific reference ranges for left ventricular, right ventricular, left atrial and right atrial structure and function derived from truly healthy Caucasian adults aged 45–74. Methods Five thousand sixty-five UK Biobank participants underwent CMR using steady-state free precession imaging at 1.5 Tesla. Manual analysis was performed for all four cardiac chambers. Participants with non-Caucasian ethnicity, known cardiovascular disease and other conditions known to affect cardiac chamber size and function were excluded. Remaining participants formed the healthy reference cohort; reference ranges were calculated and were stratified by gender and age (45–54, 55–64, 65–74). Results After applying exclusion criteria, 804 (16.2%) participants were available for analysis. Left ventricular (LV) volumes were larger in males compared to females for absolute and indexed values. With advancing age, LV volumes were mostly smaller in both sexes. LV ejection fraction was significantly greater in females compared to males (mean ± standard deviation [SD] of 61 ± 5% vs 58 ± 5%) and remained static with age for both genders. In older age groups, LV mass was lower in men, but remained virtually unchanged in women. LV mass was significantly higher in males compared to females (mean ± SD of 53 ± 9 g/m2 vs 42 ± 7 g/m2). Right ventricular (RV) volumes were significantly larger in males compared to females for absolute and indexed values and were smaller with advancing age. RV ejection fraction was higher with increasing age in females only. Left atrial (LA) maximal volume and stroke volume were significantly larger in males compared to females for absolute values but not for indexed values. LA ejection fraction was similar for both sexes. Right atrial (RA) maximal volume was significantly larger in males for both absolute and indexed values, while RA ejection fraction was significantly higher in females. Conclusions We describe age- and sex-specific reference ranges for the left ventricle, right ventricle and atria in the largest validated normal Caucasian population. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12968-017-0327-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Normal human left and right ventricular dimensions for MRI as assessed by turbo gradient echo and steady-state free precession imaging sequences.

            To establish normal ranges of left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) dimensions as determined by the current pulse sequences in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Sixty normal subjects (30 male and 30 female; age range, 20-65) were examined; both turbo gradient echo (TGE) and steady-state free precession (SSFP) pulse sequences were used to obtain contiguous short-axis cine data sets from the ventricular apex to the base of the heart. The LV and RV volumes and LV mass were calculated by modified Simpson's rule. Normal ranges were established and indexed to both body surface area (BSA) and height. There were statistically significant differences in the measurements between the genders and between TGE and SSFP pulse sequences. For TGE the LV end-diastolic volume (EDV)/BSA (mL/m(2)) in males was 74.4 +/- 14.6 and in females was 70.9 +/- 11.7, while in SSFP in males it was 82.3 +/- 14.7 and in females it was 77.7 +/- 10.8. For the TGE the LV mass/BSA (g/m(2)) in males was 77.8 +/- 9.1 and in females it was 61.5 +/- 7.5, while in SSFP in males it was 64.7 +/- 9.3 and in females it was 52.0 +/- 7.4. For TGE the RV EDV/BSA (mL/m(2)) in males was 78.4 +/- 14.0 and in females it was 67.5 +/- 12.7, while in SSFP in males it was 86.2 +/- 14.1 and in females it was 75.2 +/- 13.8. We have provided normal ranges that are gender specific as well as data that can be used for age-specific normal ranges for both SSFP and TGE pulse sequences. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              ACCF/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2013 multimodality appropriate use criteria for the detection and risk assessment of stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

              The American College of Cardiology Foundation along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of common clinical presentations for stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) to consider use of stress testing and anatomic diagnostic procedures. This document reflects an updating of the prior Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) published for radionuclide imaging (RNI), stress echocardiography (Echo), calcium scoring, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), and invasive coronary angiography for SIHD. This is in keeping with the commitment to revise and refine the AUC on a frequent basis. A major innovation in this document is the rating of tests side by side for the same indication. The side-by-side rating removes any concerns about differences in indication or interpretation stemming from prior use of separate documents for each test. However, the ratings were explicitly not competitive rankings due to the limited availability of comparative evidence, patient variability, and range of capabilities available in any given local setting. The indications for this review are limited to the detection and risk assessment of SIHD and were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Eighty clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate rating panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate Appropriate, May Be Appropriate, or Rarely Appropriate use following a modified Delphi process following the recently updated AUC development methodology. The use of some modalities of testing in the initial evaluation of patients with symptoms representing ischemic equivalents, newly diagnosed heart failure, arrhythmias, and syncope was generally found to be Appropriate or May Be Appropriate, except in cases where low pre-test probability or low risk limited the benefit of most testing except exercise electrocardiogram (ECG). Testing for the evaluation of new or worsening symptoms following a prior test or procedure was found to be Appropriate. In addition, testing was found to be Appropriate or May Be Appropriate for patients within 90 days of an abnormal or uncertain prior result. Pre-operative testing was rated Appropriate or May Be Appropriate only for patients who had poor functional capacity and were undergoing vascular or intermediate risk surgery with 1 or more clinical risk factors or an organ transplant. The exercise ECG was suggested as an Appropriate test for cardiac rehabilitation clearance or for exercise prescription purposes. Testing in asymptomatic patients was generally found to be Rarely Appropriate, except for calcium scoring and exercise testing in intermediate and high-risk individuals and either stress or anatomic imaging in higher-risk individuals, which were all rated as May Be Appropriate. All modalities of follow-up testing after a prior test or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 2 years and within 5 years after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in the absence of new symptoms were rated Rarely Appropriate. Pre-operative testing for patients with good functional capacity, prior normal testing within 1 year, or prior to low-risk surgery also were found to be Rarely Appropriate. Imaging for an exercise prescription or prior to the initiation of cardiac rehabilitation was Rarely Appropriate except for cardiac rehabilitation clearance for heart failure patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                2047-2404
                2047-2412
                September 23 2019
                September 23 2019
                Affiliations
                [1 ]NIHR Barts Biomedical Research Centre, William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK
                [2 ]Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew’s, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
                [3 ]Department of Biomedical Imaging Science, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds
                [4 ]Department of Cardiology, University of Liège Hospital, GIGA Cardiovascular Sciences, Heart Valve Clinic, CHU du Sart Tilman, Domaine Universitaire du Sart Tilman, Batiment B35, Liège, Belgium
                [5 ]Gruppo Villa Maria Care and Research, Anthea Hospital, Via Camillo Rosalba, 35, Bari BA, Italy
                [6 ]Bristol Heart Institute, Bristol National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust and University of Bristol, Upper Maudlin Street, Bristol, UK
                Article
                10.1093/ehjci/jez232
                31544926
                257ceffe-8e59-43c6-8147-207858d0b0f0
                © 2019

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article