Women physicians in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: past, present, and future

Women's engagement in medicine, and more specifically cardiovascular imaging and cardiovascular MRI (CMR), has undergone a slow evolution over the past several decades. As a result, an increasing number of women have joined the cardiovascular imaging community to contribute their expertise. This collaborative work summarizes the barriers that women in cardiovascular imaging have overcome over the past several years, the positive interventions that have been implemented to better support women in the field of CMR, and the challenges that still remain, with a special emphasis on women physicians

Worldwide variation in cardiovascular magnetic resonance practice models

INTRODUCTION: The use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for diagnosis and management of a broad range of cardiac and vascular conditions has quickly expanded worldwide. It is essential to understand how CMR is utilized in different regions around the world and the potential practice differences between high-volume and low-volume centers. METHODS: CMR practitioners and developers from around the world were electronically surveyed by the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) twice, requesting data from 2017. Both surveys were carefully merged, and the data were curated professionally by a data expert using cross-references in key questions and the specific media access control IP address. According to the United Nations classification, responses were analyzed by region and country and interpreted in the context of practice volumes and demography. RESULTS: From 70 countries and regions, 1092 individual responses were included. CMR was performed more often in academic (695/1014, 69%) and hospital settings (522/606, 86%), with adult cardiologists being the primary referring providers (680/818, 83%). Evaluation of cardiomyopathy was the top indication in high-volume and low-volume centers (p = 0.06). High-volume centers were significantly more likely to list evaluation of ischemic heart disease (e.g., stress CMR) as a primary indicator compared to low-volume centers (p < 0.001), while viability assessment was more commonly listed as a primary referral reason in low-volume centers (p = 0.001). Both developed and developing countries noted cost and competing technologies as top barriers to CMR growth. Access to scanners was listed as the most common barrier in developed countries (30% of responders), while lack of training (22% of responders) was the most common barrier in developing countries. CONCLUSION: This is the most extensive global assessment of CMR practice to date and provides insights from different regions worldwide. We identified CMR as heavily hospital-based, with referral volumes driven primarily by adult cardiology. Indications for CMR utilization varied by center volume. Efforts to improve the adoption and utilization of CMR should include growth beyond the traditional academic, hospital-based location and an emphasis on cardiomyopathy and viability assessment in community centers

International consensus statement on nomenclature and classification of the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy, for clinical, surgical, interventional and research purposes

This International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion, right-non-coronary cusp fusion and left-non-coronary cusp fusion phenotypes); 2. The 2-sinus type (latero-lateral and antero-posterior phenotypes); and 3. The partial-fusion (forme fruste) type. The presence of raphe and the symmetry of the fused type phenotypes are critical aspects to describe. The International Consensus also recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valve-associated aortopathy: 1. The ascending phenotype; 2. The root phenotype; and 3. Extended phenotypes.Cardiolog

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

This 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. © 2021, The Author(s)

Cost-Minimization Analysis for Cardiac Revascularization in 12 Health Care Systems Based on the EuroCMR/SPINS Registries

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the costs of a noninvasive cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)–guided strategy versus 2 invasive strategies with and without fractional flow reserve (FFR). Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major contributor to the public health burden. Stress perfusion CMR has excellent accuracy to detect CAD. International guidelines recommend as a first step noninvasive testing of patients in stable condition with known or suspected CAD. However, nonadherence in routine clinical practice is high. Methods: In the EuroCMR (European Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance) registry (n = 3,647, 59 centers, 18 countries) and the U.S.-based SPINS (Stress-CMR Perfusion Imaging in the United States) registry (n = 2,349, 13 centers, 11 states), costs were calculated for 12 health care systems (8 in Europe, the United States, 2 in Latin America, and 1 in Asia). Costs included diagnostic examinations (CMR and x-ray coronary angiography [CXA] with and without FFR), revascularizations, and complications during 1-year follow-up. Seven subgroup analyses covered low- to high-risk cohorts. Patients with ischemia-positive CMR underwent CXA and revascularization at the treating physician&apos;s discretion (CMR+CXA strategy). In the hypothetical invasive CXA+FFR strategy, costs were calculated for initial CXA and FFR in vessels with ≥50% stenoses, assuming the same proportion of revascularizations and complications as with the CMR+CXA strategy and FFR-positive rates as given in the published research. In the CXA-only strategy, costs included CXA and revascularizations of ≥50% stenoses. Results: Consistent cost savings were observed for the CMR+CXA strategy compared with the CXA+FFR strategy in all 12 health care systems, ranging from 42% ± 20% and 52% ± 15% in low-risk EuroCMR and SPINS patients with atypical chest pain, respectively, to 31% ± 16% in high-risk SPINS patients with known CAD (P &lt; 0.0001 vs 0 in all groups). Cost savings were even higher compared with CXA only, at 63% ± 11%, 73% ± 6%, and 52% ± 9%, respectively (P &lt; 0.0001 vs 0 in all groups). Conclusions: In 12 health care systems, a CMR+CXA strategy yielded consistent moderate to high cost savings compared with a hypothetical CXA+FFR strategy over the entire spectrum of risk. Cost savings were consistently high compared with CXA only for all risk groups. © 2022 The Author

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in autoimmune rheumatic diseases: a clinical consensus document by the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging

Autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) involve multiple organs including the heart and vasculature. Despite novel treatments, patients with ARDs still experience a reduced life expectancy, partly caused by the higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This includes CV inflammation, rhythm disturbances, perfusion abnormalities (ischaemia/infarction), dysregulation of vasoreactivity, myocardial fibrosis, coagulation abnormalities, pulmonary hypertension, valvular disease, and side-effects of immunomodulatory therapy. Currently, the evaluation of CV involvement in patients with ARDs is based on the assessment of cardiac symptoms, coupled with electrocardiography, blood testing, and echocardiography. However, CVD may not become overt until late in the course of the disease, thus potentially limiting the therapeutic window for intervention. More recently, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has allowed for the early identification of pathophysiologic structural/functional alterations that take place before the onset of clinically overt CVD. CMR allows for detailed evaluation of biventricular function together with tissue characterization of vessels/myocardium in the same examination, yielding a reliable assessment of disease activity that might not be mirrored by blood biomarkers and other imaging modalities. Therefore, CMR provides diagnostic information that enables timely clinical decision-making and facilitates the tailoring of treatment to individual patients. Here we review the role of CMR in the early and accurate diagnosis of CVD in patients with ARDs compared with other non-invasive imaging modalities. Furthermore, we present a consensus-based decision algorithm for when a CMR study could be considered in patients with ARDs, together with a standardized study protocol. Lastly, we discuss the clinical implications of findings from a CMR examination.</p

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in autoimmune rheumatic diseases: a clinical consensus document by the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging.

Autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) involve multiple organs including the heart and vasculature. Despite novel treatments, patients with ARDs still experience a reduced life expectancy, partly caused by the higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This includes CV inflammation, rhythm disturbances, perfusion abnormalities (ischaemia/infarction), dysregulation of vasoreactivity, myocardial fibrosis, coagulation abnormalities, pulmonary hypertension, valvular disease, and side-effects of immunomodulatory therapy. Currently, the evaluation of CV involvement in patients with ARDs is based on the assessment of cardiac symptoms, coupled with electrocardiography, blood testing, and echocardiography. However, CVD may not become overt until late in the course of the disease, thus potentially limiting the therapeutic window for intervention. More recently, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has allowed for the early identification of pathophysiologic structural/functional alterations that take place before the onset of clinically overt CVD. CMR allows for detailed evaluation of biventricular function together with tissue characterization of vessels/myocardium in the same examination, yielding a reliable assessment of disease activity that might not be mirrored by blood biomarkers and other imaging modalities. Therefore, CMR provides diagnostic information that enables timely clinical decision-making and facilitates the tailoring of treatment to individual patients. Here we review the role of CMR in the early and accurate diagnosis of CVD in patients with ARDs compared with other non-invasive imaging modalities. Furthermore, we present a consensus-based decision algorithm for when a CMR study could be considered in patients with ARDs, together with a standardized study protocol. Lastly, we discuss the clinical implications of findings from a CMR examination

International Consensus Statement on Nomenclature and Classification of the Congenital Bicuspid Aortic Valve and Its Aortopathy, for Clinical, Surgical, Interventional and Research Purposes

This International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion, right-non-coronary cusp fusion and left-non coronary cusp fusion phenotypes); 2. The 2-sinus type (latero-lateral and antero-posterior phenotypes); and 3. The partial-fusion (forme fruste) type. The presence of raphe and the symmetry of the fused type phenotypes are critical aspects to describe. The International Consensus also recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valve-associated aortopathy: 1. The ascending phenotype; 2. The root phenotype; and 3. Extended phenotypes. (Ann Thorac Surg 2021;112:e203-35) 2021 Jointly between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, and the Radiological Society of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc.Cardiolog

Summary: International Consensus Statement on Nomenclature and Classification of the Congenital Bicuspid Aortic Valve and Its Aortopathy, for Clinical, Surgical, Interventional and Research Purposes

This International evidence-based nomenclature and classification consensus on the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy recognizes 3 types of bicuspid aortic valve: 1. Fused type, with 3 phenotypes: right-left cusp fusion, right-non cusp fusion and left-non cusp fusion; 2. 2-sinus type with 2 phenotypes: Latero-lateral and antero-posterior; and 3. Partial-fusion or forme fruste. This consensus recognizes 3 bicuspid-aortopathy types: 1. Ascending phenotype; root phenotype; and 3. extended phenotypes. (Ann Thorac Surg 2021;112:1005-22) 2021 Jointly between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, and the Radiological Society of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc.Cardiolog