Clinical use, diagnostic efficiency and impact on patient management of cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Results CMR was used in a large variety of indications, with inflammatory (29.4%) and ischemic (26.2%) heart disease as the most frequent. All moderate adverse events (0.5%) were associated with stress medication or contrast media. In subgroup analysis, CMR ruled out a suspected disease in 63.1%, confirmed a suspected or known disease in 27.8% or detected an unexpected new pathology in 7.2%. The clinical question was answered completely or partially in 88.4% and 11.2%, respectively. CMR reduced the amount of other diagnostic tests by 65.7% and changed the diagnostic strategy for the individual patient in 92.4%. For instance, 11/36 (30.6%) of the subjects who should initially undergo heart catheterization did not require this invasive study subsequent to the CMR. In contrast, 12/214 (5.6%) of the patients required heart catheterization based on the CMR findings, even though they were not scheduled for heart catheterization initially. In 23.6%, CMR led to a strategic change between inor outpatient treatment.