age 49.4 ± Exclusion criteria: 6 months post CMR Change to surgical plan 16.3 years procedure Patients who were scanned for research male = 322 (66%) purposes or non-funded indications Note: No specific results for CM; however, median NYHA the CM population is 67% (449/666) of the Class (IQR) = 2 total, so could the results be applied to the (1–2) CM population? Abassi et al. Level IV N=150 patients with Inclusion criteria: CMR imaging: Significant clinical impact (defined as an HF referred for (using SCMR entirely ‘new diagnosis’ and/or a ‘change in (2013) Quality: Good LVEF ≤50% by prior imaging studies CMR over a standardised management’ period protocols) USA Risk of bias: low NYHA class: I = 26%; II = 49%; III = 49%; IV Change in patient management = 1% Patient Late-Gd Prospective New diagnoses observational study, characteristics: Exclusion criteria: enhancement single centre age (mean) Image analysis was NR 54 years performed by blinded physician. male 57% LVEF mean 38% (± 11%) ) Level-III-3 N=102 consecutive Inclusion criteria: CMR Diagnostic yield patients with a Norway Quality: Moderate: Suspected DCM, LV end diastolic internal LGE (unless Therapeutic consequences diagnosis of diameter ≥6.5 cm and ejection fraction contraindicated) idiopathic DCM Case series Risk of bias: low ≤40% Right-sided heart Patient Exclusion criteria: catheterisation characteristics: Ischaemic, hypertensive and valvular heart EMB age (mean ± SD) disease, patients with a known or suspected 51 ± 14 years Genetic testing cause of CM including myocarditis, patients male 73 (74%) with an implanted cardiac device or severe Genomic analysis concomitant disease for viral detection NYHA class (n): I = 15; II = 61; III = Objective Conventional and
age 49.4 ± 16.3 years male = 322 (66%) median NYHA Class (IQR) = 2 (1–2) Exclusion criteria: Patients who were scanned for research purposes or non-funded indications 6 months post CMR procedure Change to surgical plan Note: No specific results for CM; however, the CM population is 67% (449/666) of the total, so could the results be applied to the CM population? Abassi et al. (2013) USA Prospective observational study, single centre Level IV Quality: Good Risk of bias: low N=150 patients with HF referred for CMR over a period Patient characteristics: age (mean) 54 years male 57% LVEF mean 38% (± 11%) Inclusion criteria: LVEF ≤50% by prior imaging studies NYHA class: I = 26%; II = 49%; III = 49%; IV = 1% Exclusion criteria: NR CMR imaging: (using SCMR standardised protocols) Late-Gd enhancement Image analysis was performed by blinded physician. Significant clinical impact (defined as an entirely ‘new diagnosis’ and/or a ‘change in management’ Change in patient management New diagnoses ) Norway Case series Level-III-3 Quality: Moderate: Risk of bias: low N=102 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of idiopathic DCM Patient characteristics: age (mean ± SD) 51 ± 14 years male 73 (74%) NYHA class (n): I = 15; II = 61; III = Inclusion criteria: Suspected DCM, LV end diastolic internal diameter ≥6.5 cm and ejection fraction ≤40% Exclusion criteria: Ischaemic, hypertensive and valvular heart disease, patients with a known or suspected cause of CM including myocarditis, patients with an implanted cardiac device or severe concomitant disease Objective CMR LGE (unless contraindicated) Right-sided heart catheterisation EMB Genetic testing Genomic analysis for viral detection Conventional and Diagnostic yield Therapeutic consequences
1393-CMRforDCM.docx