Abstract
There has been a growing need for standard Asian population guidelines for cardiac CT and cardiac MR due to differences in culture, healthcare system, ethnicity and disease prevalence. The Asian Society of Cardiovascular Imaging, as the only society dedicated to cardiovascular imaging in Asia, formed a cardiac CT and cardiac MR guideline working group in order to help Asian practitioners to establish cardiac CT and cardiac MR services. In this ASCI cardiac MR appropriateness criteria report, 23 Technical Panel members representing various Asian countries were invited to rate 50 indications that can frequently be encountered in clinical practice in Asia. Indications were rated on a scale of 1–9 to be categorized into ‘appropriate’ (7–9), ‘uncertain’ (4–6), or ‘inappropriate’ (1–3). According to median scores of the 23 members, the final ratings for indications were 24 appropriate, 18 uncertain and 8 inappropriate with 22 ‘highly-agreed’ (19 appropriate and 3 inappropriate) indications. This report is expected to have a significant impact on the cardiac MR practices in many Asian countries by promoting the appropriate use of cardiac MR.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10554-010-9687-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Keywords: Appropriateness criteria, Cardiac magnetic resonance, Guideline, Asia
Introduction
Due to differences in culture, healthcare systems, ethnicity [1], socioeconomic status [2] and disease prevalence [3, 4], existing guidelines for cardiac computed tomography (CT) and cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) developed by western professional societies are often not applicable in Asian countries. In March 2009, the Asian Society of Cardiovascular Imaging (ASCI), as the only society in Asia dedicated solely to cardiovascular imaging, nominated 7 representatives from different Asian countries to form a working group to provide recommendations on cardiac CT and cardiac MR. Detailed background of this project has previously been described in the ASCI cardiac CT criteria report, the first publication from the working group, which summarized the opinions of leading cardiac CT practitioners in Asia on 51 indications [5]. As the second step, we present here the ASCI cardiac MR appropriateness criteria. The purpose of this report is to serve as a reference for Asian practitioners to promote and improve their use of cardiac MR by providing appropriateness ratings for common clinical indications.
Methods
ASCI cardiac MR appropriateness criteria were developed through the same process as used for ASCI CT appropriateness criteria published earlier this year [5]. Briefly, we employed the modified Delphi method with one-round data collection to evaluate the cardiac MR appropriateness [6, 7]. A total of 25 panelists were nominated [Japan 6, Korea 5, Taiwan 4, China 3, Hong Kong (China) 3, Singapore 2, Thailand 2] by Working Group members, and approved by the Working Group with consensus.
In the development of the cardiac MR indications, the Working Group members agreed to use the 33 cardiac MR indications provided by the ACCF 2006 appropriateness criteria as the framework [8]. Indications considered for the ASCI 2010 cardiac CT appropriateness criteria were added and integrated to derive 50 indications which were approved by the Working Group. Among the 50 indications, 28 were in common with ACCF 2006 appropriateness criteria and 39 were in common with ASCI 2010 CT appropriateness criteria. Three indications [risk assessment in general populations with low, moderate and high coronary heart disease risk using coronary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA)] were original indications of ASCI cardiac MR appropriateness criteria.
A questionnaire was emailed to the 25 Technical Panel members. After completion, the questionnaires were collected by the ASCI office. The questionnaires were collected during a period between October 13 and November 11, 2009. Please refer to the online supplement for the complete questionnaire (Online Supplement 1).
Definition of cardiac MR
There are a variety of techniques used for cardiac MR [9]. Basic protocols might include cine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for wall motion and delayed gadolinium enhancement MRI for the assessment of scar [10–19]. However, some may perform stress tests routinely using either perfusion MRI with adenosine [20, 21] or cine MRI with dobutamine [22, 23], while others may consider coronary and non-coronary MRA [24, 25] as important parts of cardiac MR examinations. Moreover, different techniques can be utilized to assess certain aspects of cardiac morphology and function [26–29]. Since cardiac MR is still an intense field of research and development, it is also possible for appropriateness to be influenced by the availability of newer scanners and more sophisticated imaging techniques [30]. Thus, the Working Group decided to leave the definition of cardiac MR to the judgment of the Technical Panel members. Resulting variations in definitions might be an important reflection of the current perspectives of the leading Asian cardiac MR practitioners. In the questionnaire, the term “cardiac MR” was defined as including motion, stress and rest perfusion, delayed gadolinium enhancement, flow measurement, black blood T2-weighted imaging, and coronary MRA.
Rating system
The rating system used in this Asian survey is the same as previously used in other appropriateness criteria reports and ASCI CT appropriateness criteria. The panelists were asked to assess whether the use of cardiac MR for various indications was appropriate, uncertain or inappropriate. The Technical Panel scored each indication as follows:
Score 7–9: Appropriate test for the specific indication. Test is generally acceptable and a reasonable approach for the listed indication.
Score 4–6: Uncertain for specific indication. Test may be generally acceptable and may be a reasonable approach for the indication. Uncertainty also implies that more research or patient information or both are needed to classify the indication definitively.
Score 1–3: Inappropriate test for specific indication. Test is not generally acceptable and is not a reasonable approach for the indication.
In a panel with 23–25 members, ‘highly agreed’ was defined as 7 or fewer panelists rating outside the three-point region containing the median. ‘Disagreement’ was defined as at least 8 panelists rating in either extreme (1–3 and 7–9). Median values for each indication served as the final scoring if there was no disagreement among Technical Panelists [5, 7, 8]. If there was disagreement, the final appropriateness score was set as uncertain regardless of the median.
Results
The questionnaires were emailed to the Technical Panel members on October 13, 2009. Completed questionnaires were returned from 23 members [Japan 6, Korea 5, Taiwan 4, China 2, Hong Kong (China) 2, Singapore 2, Thailand 2] by November 11. Their specialties were radiology in 17 and cardiology in 6. The years of experience in the cardiovascular field ranged from 4 to 26 years while the experience of cardiac MR interpretation ranged from 300 to 3,000 examinations. For the cardiologists, the number of percutaneous coronary interventions performed range from 0 to 700 cases. The hospitals they were working in included city hospitals, medical centers, and university hospitals, with in-patient bed numbers ranging from 440 to 5,600. The complete list of Technical Panel members is provided at the beginning of this report.
Among the indications rated by Technical Panel, none showed disagreement. There were 24 appropriate, 18 uncertain and 8 inappropriate indications. Technical Panel members highly agreed in 22 indications, including 19 appropriate and 3 inappropriate indications. The ‘highly agreed’ inappropriate indications were: use of cardiac MR for evaluation of chest pain syndrome in patients with low pre-test probabilities of CAD, interpretable ECGs and ability to exercise; use of cardiac MR for detection of CAD in asymptomatic patients with low coronary heart disease risk; and use of coronary MRA for risk assessment in patients with low coronary heart disease risk. A detail appropriateness rating result is provided as an online supplement (Online Supplement 2).
Compared with the ACCF 2006 report [8], only 4/28 (14%) indications changed their category. Indication no. 38 (“evaluation of LV function following myocardial infarction or in heart failure patients”) and no. 49 (“to detect post PCI myocardial necrosis”) were shifted from uncertain to appropriate. Indication no. 30 (“evaluation of bypass grafts and coronary anatomy”) and no. 31 (“history of percutaneous revascularization with stents”) were shifted from inappropriate to uncertain.
Compared with the ASCI cardiac CT appropriateness criteria report [5], 29/39 (74%) were in the same appropriateness category. In 7 indications, cardiac CT received a more favorable category than cardiac MR: indication no. 2 (“detection of CAD: symptomatic, intermediate pre-test probability of CAD. ECG interpretable and able to exercise”), no. 27 (“use of MRI for CAD evaluation before valve surgery”), no. 29 (“evaluation of complex lesions before PCI”), no. 30 (“evaluation of bypass grafts and coronary anatomy”), no. 31 (“history of percutaneous revascularization with stents”), no. 33 (“evaluation of bypass grafts and coronary anatomy greater than or equal to 5 years after CABG”), and no. 34 (“evaluation for in-stent restenosis and coronary anatomy after PCI”). On the other hand, cardiac MR received a more favorable category than cardiac CT in 3 indications; indication no. 38 (“evaluation of LV function following myocardial infarction or in heart failure patients”), no. 48 (“to determine the location and extent of myocardial infarction including ‘no-reflow’ regions, post-acute myocardial infarction”), and no. 50 (“to determine viability prior to revascularization”).
The final ratings for cardiac MR are listed by indication sequentially (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) and by appropriateness category (Tables 12, 13, 14).
Table 1.
Detection of CAD: symptomatic
| Indication | Appropriateness criteria (median score) | Note | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation of chest pain syndrome | |||
| 1 | Low pre-test probability of CAD | I (2) | Highly agreed |
| ACCF indication no. 1 | |||
| ECG interpretable AND able to exercise | |||
| 2 | Intermediate pre-test probability of CAD | U (4) | ACCF indication no. 2 |
| ECG interpretable AND able to exercise | |||
| ASCI CT indication no. 1 | |||
| 3 | Intermediate pre-test probability of CAD | A (7) | ACCF indication no. 3 |
| ECG uninterpretable OR unable to exercise | |||
| ASCI CT indication no. 2 | |||
| 4 | High pre-test probability of CAD | U (6) | ACCF indication no. 4 |
| ASCI CT indication no. 3 | |||
| Evaluation of intra-cardiac structures | |||
| 5 | Evaluation of suspected coronary anomalies | A (8) | Highly agreed |
| ACCF indication no. 8 | |||
| ASCI CT indication no. 4 | |||
| Acute chest pain | |||
| 6 | Low pre-test probability of CAD | U (4) | ASCI CT indication no. 5 |
| No ECG changes and serial enzymes negative | |||
| 7 | Intermediate pre-test probability of CAD | U (5) | ACCF indication no. 9 |
| No ECG changes and serial enzymes negative | |||
| ASCI CT indication no. 6 | |||
| 8 | High pre-test probability of CAD | U (5) | ASCI CT indication no. 7 |
| No ECG changes and serial enzymes negative | |||
| 9 | High pre-test probability of CAD | I (2) | ACCF indication no. 10 |
| ECG—ST-segment elevation and/or positive cardiac enzymes | |||
| ASCI CT indication no. 8 | |||
Table 2.
Detection of CAD: asymptomatic (without chest pain syndrome)
| Indication | Appropriateness criteria (median score) | Note | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asymptomatic | |||
| 10 | Low CHD risk (Framingham risk criteria) | I (1) | Highly agreed |
| ASCI CT indication no. 10 | |||
| 11 | Moderate CHD risk (Framingham) | U (4) | ASCI CT indication no. 11 |
| 12 | High CHD risk (Framingham) | U (6) | ASCI CT indication no. 12 |
Table 3.
Risk assessment: general population
| Indication | Appropriateness criteria (median score) | Note | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asymptomatic (use of coronary MRA) | |||
| 13 | Low CHD risk (Framingham) | I (3) | Highly agreed |
| 14 | Moderate CHD risk (Framingham) | I (3) | |
| 15 | High CHD risk (Framingham) | U (5) | |
Table 4.
Detection of CAD with prior test results
| Indication | Appropriateness criteria (median score) | Note | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation of chest pain syndrome | |||
| 16 | Uninterpretable or equivocal stress test (exercise, perfusion, or stress echo) | A (8) | Highly agreed |
| ASCI CT indication no. 16 | |||
| 17 | Evidence of moderate to severe ischemia on stress test (exercise, perfusion, or stress echo) | U (5) | ASCI CT indication no. 17 |
Table 5.
Risk assessment with prior test results
| Indication | Appropriateness criteria (median score) | Note | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asymptomatic | |||
| 18 | Normal prior stress test (exercise, nuclear, echo, MRI) | I (3) | ACCF indication no. 11 |
| High CHD risk (Framingham) | |||
| 19 | Equivocal stress test (exercise, stress SPECT, or stress echo) | U (6) | ACCF indication no. 12 |
| Intermediate CHD risk (Framingham) | |||
| 20 | Coronary angiography (catheterization or CT) | A (7) | ACCF indication no. 13 |
| Stenosis of unclear significance | |||
Table 6.
CAD detection in pediatric patients with kawasaki disease
| Indication | Appropriateness criteria (median score) | Note | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asymptomatic | |||
| 21 | No previous definitive test (invasive angiography, MRCA or CTCA) available | U (5) | Asian characteristic indication |
| ASCI CT indication no. 21 | |||
| 22 | Previous tests (invasive angiography, CMR or CCT) documented coronary aneurysm/stenosis, for follow up | A (7) | Highly agreed |
| Asian characteristic indication | |||
| ASCI CT indication no. 22 | |||
| Symptomatic | |||
| 23 | No previous definitive test (invasive angiography, MRCA or CTCA) available | A (7) | Asian characteristic indication |
| ASCI CT indication no. 23 | |||
| 24 | Previous tests (angiography, CMR or CCT) documented coronary aneurysm/stenosis, for follow up | A (7) | Asian characteristic indication |
| ASCI CT indication no. 24 | |||
Table 7.
Risk assessment: preoperative evaluation for non-cardiac surgery
| Indication | Appropriateness criteria (median score) | Note | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low-risk surgery | |||
| 25 | Intermediate perioperative risk | I (3) | ACCF indication no. 14 |
| ASCI CT indication no. 25 | |||
| Intermediate- or high-risk surgery | |||
| 26 | Intermediate perioperative risk | U (5) | ACCF indication no. 15 |
| ASCI CT indication no. 26 | |||
Table 8.
Risk assessment: preoperative evaluation for cardiac surgery or endovascular intervention
| Indication | Appropriateness criteria (median score) | Note | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative evaluation | |||
| 27 | Use of MRI for CAD evaluation before valve surgery | U (6) | JCCT 2009 proposed indication |
| ASCI CT indication no. 27 | |||
| 28 | Anatomic assessment before percutaneous device closure of ASD or VSD or percutaneous aortic valve replacement | A (7) | JCCT 2009 proposed indication |
| ASCI CT indication no. 28 | |||
| 29 | Evaluation of complex lesions before PCI (i.e., chronic total occlusions, bifurcation lesions) | U (5) | JCCT 2009 proposed indication |
| ASCI CT indication no. 29 | |||
Table 9.
Detection of CAD: post-revascularization (PCI or CABG)
| Indication | Appropriateness criteria (median score) | Note | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation of chest pain syndrome | |||
| 30 | Evaluation of bypass grafts and coronary anatomy | U (5) | ACCF indication no. 16 |
| ASCI CT indication no. 30 | |||
| 31 | History of percutaneous revascularization with stents | U (4) | ACCF indication no. 17 |
| ASCI CT indication no. 31 | |||
| Asymptomatic | |||
| 32 | Evaluation of bypass grafts and coronary anatomy | U (4) | ASCI CT indication no. 32 |
| Less than 5 years after CABG | |||
| 33 | Evaluation of bypass grafts and coronary anatomy | U (4) | ASCI CT indication no. 33 |
| Greater than or equal to 5 years after CABG | |||
| 34 | Evaluation for in-stent restenosis and coronary anatomy after PCI | I (3) | ASCI CT indication no. 34 |
Table 10.
Structure and function
| Indication | Appropriateness criteria (median score) | Note | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Morphology | |||
| 35 | Assessment of complex congenital heart disease including anomalies of coronary circulation, great vessels, and cardiac chambers and valves | A (8) | Highly agreed |
| ACCF indication no. 18 | |||
| ASCI CT indication no. 35 | |||
| 36 | Assessment of post-operative congenital heart disease, such as residual pulmonary stenosis, ventricular septal defect and patency check for Blalock-Taussig shunt | A (8) | Highly agreed |
| ASCI CT indication no. 36 | |||
| Asian characteristic indication | |||
| 37 | Evaluation in patients with new onset heart failure to assess etiology | A (8) | Highly agreed |
| ASCI CT indication no. 37 | |||
| Evaluation of ventricular and valvular function | |||
| 38 | Evaluation of LV function following myocardial infarction OR in heart failure patients | A (8) | Highly agreed |
| ACCF indication no. 19 | |||
| 39 | Evaluation of LV function following myocardial infarction OR in heart failure patients | A (9) | Highly agreed |
| ACCF indication no. 20 | |||
| Patients with technically limited images from echocardiogram | |||
| 40 | Quantification of LV function | A(9) | Highly agreed |
| Discordant information that is clinically significant from prior tests | ACCF indication no. 21 | ||
| 41 | Evaluation of specific cardiomyopathies (infiltrative [amyloid, sarcoid], HCM, or due to cardiotoxic therapies) | A(9) | Highly agreed |
| ACCF indication no. 22 | |||
| 42 | Characterization of native and prosthetic cardiac valves | A (7) | Highly agreed |
| Patients with technically limited images from echocardiogram or TEE | ACCF indication no. 23 | ||
| 43 | Evaluation for arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) | A (8) | Highly agreed |
| ACCF indication no. 24 | |||
| Patients presenting with syncope or ventricular arrhythmia | |||
| 44 | Evaluation of myocarditis or myocardial infarction with normal coronary arteries | A(9) | Highly agreed |
| ACCF indication no. 25 | |||
| Positive cardiac enzymes without obstructive atherosclerosis on angiography | |||
| Evaluation of intra- and extra-cardiac structures | |||
| 45 | Evaluation of cardiac mass (suspected tumor or thrombus) | A (9) | Highly agreed |
| Patients with technically limited images from echocardiogram or TEE | ACCF indication no. 26 | ||
| ASCI CT indication no. 42 | |||
| 46 | Evaluation of pericardial conditions (pericardial mass, constrictive pericarditis, or complications of cardiac surgery) | A (8) | Highly agreed |
| Patients with technically limited images from echocardiogram or TEE | |||
| ACCF indication no. 27 | |||
| ASCI CT indication no. 43 | |||
| 47 | Evaluation of pulmonary vein anatomy prior to invasive radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation | A (7) | Highly agreed |
| ACCF indication no. 29 | |||
| Left atrial and pulmonary venous anatomy including dimensions of veins for mapping purposes | |||
| ASCI CT indication no. 44 | |||
Table 11.
Detection of myocardial scar and viability
| Indication | Appropriateness criteria (median score) | Note | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation of myocardial scar | |||
| 48 | To determine the location and extent of myocardial infarction including ‘no-reflow’ regions | A (9) | Highly agreed |
| ACCF indication no. 30 | |||
| Post-acute myocardial infarction | |||
| 49 | To detect post PCI myocardial necrosis | A (8) | Highly agreed |
| ACCF indication no. 31 | |||
| 50 | To determine viability prior to revascularization | A (9) | Highly agreed |
| ACCF indication no. 32 | |||
Table 12.
Appropriate indications (median score 7–9)
| Indication | Appropriateness criteria (median score) | |
|---|---|---|
| Detection of CAD: symptomatic—evaluation of chest pain syndrome | ||
| 3 | Intermediate pre-test probability of CAD | A (7) |
| ECG uninterpretable OR unable to exercise | ||
| Detection of CAD: symptomatic—evaluation of intra-cardiac structures | ||
| 5 | Evaluation of suspected coronary anomalies | A (8) |
| Detection of CAD with prior test results—evaluation of chest pain syndrome | ||
| 16 | Uninterpretable or equivocal stress test (exercise, perfusion, or stress echo) | A (8) |
| Risk Assessment with prior test results—asymptomatic | ||
| 20 | Coronary angiography (catheterization or CT) | A (7) |
| Stenosis of unclear significance | ||
| CAD detection in pediatric patients with kawasaki disease—asymptomatic | ||
| 22 | Previous tests (invasive angiography, CMR or CCT) documented coronary aneurysm/stenosis, for follow up | A (7) |
| CAD detection in pediatric patients with kawasaki disease—symptomatic | ||
| 23 | No previous definitive test (invasive angiography, MRCA or CTCA) available | A (7) |
| 24 | Previous tests (angiography, CMR or CCT) documented coronary aneurysm/stenosis, for follow up | A (7) |
| Risk Assessment: preoperative evaluation for cardiac surgery or endovascular intervention—preoperative evaluation | ||
| 28 | Anatomic assessment before percutaneous device closure of ASD or VSD or percutaneous aortic valve replacement | A (7) |
| Structure and function—morphology | ||
| 35 | Assessment of complex congenital heart disease including anomalies of coronary circulation, great vessels, and cardiac chambers and valves | A (8) |
| 36 | Assessment of post-operative congenital heart disease, such as residual pulmonary stenosis, ventricular septal defect and patency check for Blalock-Taussig shunt | A (8) |
| 37 | Evaluation in patients with new onset heart failure to assess etiology | A (8) |
| Structure and function—evaluation of ventricular and valvular function | ||
| 39 | Evaluation of LV function following myocardial infarction OR in heart failure patients | A (9) |
| Patients with technically limited images from echocardiogram | ||
| 38 | Evaluation of LV function following myocardial infarction OR in heart failure patients | A (8) |
| 40 | Quantification of LV function | A(9) |
| Discordant information that is clinically significant from prior tests | ||
| 41 | Evaluation of specific cardiomyopathies (infiltrative [amyloid, sarcoid], HCM, or due to cardiotoxic therapies) | A(9) |
| 42 | Characterization of native and prosthetic cardiac valves | A (7) |
| Patients with technically limited images from echocardiogram or TEE | ||
| 43 | Evaluation for arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) | A (8) |
| Patients presenting with syncope or ventricular arrhythmia | ||
| 44 | Evaluation of myocarditis or myocardial infarction with normal coronary arteries | A(9) |
| Positive cardiac enzymes without obstructive atherosclerosis on angiography | ||
| Structure and function—evaluation of intra- and extra-cardiac structures | ||
| 45 | Evaluation of cardiac mass (suspected tumor or thrombus) | A (9) |
| Patients with technically limited images from echocardiogram or TEE | ||
| 46 | Evaluation of pericardial conditions (pericardial mass, constrictive pericarditis, or complications of cardiac surgery) | A (8) |
| Patients with technically limited images from echocardiogram or TEE | ||
| 47 | Evaluation of pulmonary vein anatomy prior to invasive radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation | A (7) |
| Left atrial and pulmonary venous anatomy including dimensions of veins for mapping purposes | ||
| Structure and function—evaluation of myocardial scar | ||
| 48 | To determine the location and extent of myocardial infarction including ‘no-reflow’ regions | A (9) |
| Post-acute myocardial infarction | ||
| 49 | To detect post PCI myocardial necrosis | A (8) |
| 50 | To determine viability prior to revascularization | A (9) |
Table 13.
Uncertain indications (median score 4–6)
| Indication | Appropriateness criteria (median score) | |
|---|---|---|
| Detection of CAD: symptomatic—evaluation of chest pain syndrome | ||
| 2 | Intermediate pre-test probability of CAD | U (4) |
| ECG interpretable AND able to exercise | ||
| 4 | High pre-test probability of CAD | U (6) |
| Detection of CAD: symptomatic—acute chest pain | ||
| 6 | Low pre-test probability of CAD | U (4) |
| No ECG changes and serial enzymes negative | ||
| 7 | Intermediate pre-test probability of CAD | U (5) |
| No ECG changes and serial enzymes negative | ||
| 8 | High pre-test probability of CAD | U (5) |
| No ECG changes and serial enzymes negative | ||
| Detection of CAD: asymptomatic—asymptomatic | ||
| 11 | Moderate CHD risk (Framingham) | U (4) |
| 12 | High CHD risk (Framingham) | U (6) |
| Risk Assessment: general population—asymptomatic (use of coronary MRA) | ||
| 15 | High CHD risk (Framingham) | U (5) |
| Detection of CAD with prior test results—evaluation of chest pain syndrome | ||
| 17 | Evidence of moderate to severe ischemia on stress test (exercise, perfusion, or stress echo) | U (5) |
| Risk Assessment with prior test results—asymptomatic | ||
| 19 | Equivocal stress test (exercise, stress SPECT, or stress echo) | U (6) |
| Intermediate CHD risk (Framingham) | ||
| CAD detection in pediatric patients with kawasaki disease—asymptomatic | ||
| 21 | No previous definitive test (invasive angiography, MRCA or CTCA) available | U (5) |
| Risk assessment: preoperative evaluation for non-cardiac surgery | ||
| Intermediate- or high-risk surgery | ||
| 26 | Intermediate perioperative risk | U (5) |
| Risk assessment: preoperative evaluation for cardiac surgery or endovascular intervention—preoperative evaluation | ||
| 27 | Use of MRI for CAD evaluation before valve surgery | U (6) |
| 29 | Evaluation of complex lesions before PCI (i.e., chronic total occlusions, bifurcation lesions) | U (5) |
| Detection of CAD: post-revascularization (PCI or CABG)—evaluation of chest pain syndrome | ||
| 30 | Evaluation of bypass grafts and coronary anatomy | U (5) |
| 31 | History of percutaneous revascularization with stents | U (4) |
| Detection of CAD: post-revascularization (PCI or CABG)—asymptomatic | ||
| 32 | Evaluation of bypass grafts and coronary anatomy | U (4) |
| Less than 5 years after CABG | ||
| 33 | Evaluation of bypass grafts and coronary anatomy | U (4) |
| Greater than or equal to 5 years after CABG | ||
Table 14.
Inappropriate indications (median score 1–3)
| Indication | Appropriateness criteria (median score) | |
|---|---|---|
| Detection of CAD: symptomatic—evaluation of chest pain syndrome | ||
| 1 | Low pre-test probability of CAD | I (2) |
| ECG interpretable AND able to exercise | ||
| Detection of CAD: symptomatic—acute chest pain | ||
| 9 | High pre-test probability of CAD | I (2) |
| ECG—ST-segment elevation and/or positive cardiac enzymes | ||
| Detection of CAD: asymptomatic (without chest pain syndrome)—asymptomatic | ||
| 10 | Low CHD risk (Framingham risk criteria) | I (1) |
| Risk assessment: general population—asymptomatic (use of coronary MRA) | ||
| 13 | Low CHD risk (Framingham) | I (3) |
| 14 | Moderate CHD risk (Framingham) | I (3) |
| Risk assessment with prior test results—asymptomatic | ||
| 18 | Normal prior stress test (exercise, nuclear, echo, MRI) | I (3) |
| High CHD risk (Framingham) | ||
| Risk assessment: preoperative evaluation for non-cardiac surgery—low-risk surgery | ||
| 25 | Intermediate perioperative risk | I (3) |
| Detection of CAD: post-revascularization (PCI or CABG)—asymptomatic | ||
| 34 | Evaluation for in-stent restenosis and coronary anatomy after PCI | I (3) |
Discussion
This ASCI cardiac MR appropriateness criteria report was developed in order to reflect the current status of cardiac MR in Asia and the opinions of Asian cardiac MR leaders about appropriate indications for cardiac MR. This report should prove useful in clinical practice in Asia, especially for institutes starting cardiac MR services for the first time.
Among the 50 indications evaluated in this report, 28 were in common with the ACCF 2006 appropriateness criteria report [8], 39 were also included in the ASCI 2010 cardiac CT appropriateness criteria report [5] and 3 indications were unique to this report. In contrast to the ASCI cardiac CT appropriateness criteria report in which an upward shift of appropriateness category was demonstrated in 51.3% (20/39) of the indications as compared with ACCF 2006 appropriateness criteria report, such a shift was seen in only 14.3% (4/28) of the indications in this cardiac MR appropriateness criteria report. The rapid advancement of CT technology [31] and associated accumulation of evidence of its clinical usefulness [32–34] as well as reduction of its radiation levels [32] may explain the faster expansion of appropriate indications for cardiac CT compared to the expansion seen for cardiac MR, which has seen comparatively few technical advances over the past 5 years.
One of the most significant features of the ASCI cardiac CT and cardiac MR appropriateness criteria reports is the high number of indications evaluated for both CT and MR. Although cardiac CT was originally developed for visualization of coronary anatomy, recent studies have demonstrated the potential usefulness of one-stop shop cardiac examination in assessment of function, myocardial ischemia and myocardial viability [35, 36]. Meanwhile, the introduction of whole heart coronary MRA has enabled routine imaging of coronary anatomy which is completely noninvasive and without the need for radiation exposure and contrast medium [24, 37, 38]. Given the similarities in information obtainable, it is inevitable that CT and MR share many indications. In our questionnaire surveys, different panelists were selected for CT and MR. The panelists were not aware that similar surveys were being performed for the other modality, thus minimizing the extent to which their ratings were based on comparison to the other modality. Our survey demonstrated that CT received higher ratings than MR in the morphological assessment of native coronary arteries and bypass grafts before and after revascularization therapy. On the other hand, assessment of myocardial viability and fibrosis can be performed better with MR. However, most appropriateness ratings were similar for CT and MR, indicating that modality choice should be based on the technology and expertise available at each individual medical center.
“Use of coronary MRA in the risk assessment of general population” was evaluated in this survey. This indication was evaluated because coronary MRA has been gaining popularity as a screening tool in recent years, since the introduction of whole-heart coronary MRA [37, 39]. We found that experts in Asia consider this indication inappropriate in populations with low to intermediate coronary heart disease risk. Future research is needed to determine whether risk assessment of population with high coronary heart disease risk is appropriate or not.
This survey had several limitations. As was the case with the ASCI cardiac CT appropriateness criteria report, the Technical Panel in this study was dominated by experts from Eastern and Southeastern Asia reflecting the current academic contribution and participation in ASCI. We hope to see active participation in ASCI from Asian countries outside the Asia–Pacific region in the future. Secondly, many Technical Panelists proposed further clarification of the scan protocol. Although the importance of correct choice of MR scan protocol cannot be underestimated, this aspect is considered too complicated to be included in this questionnaire survey because of the diversity and rapid innovation of MR scan techniques used for cardiac examinations. Third, the comparison of CT and MR in the discussion section was done based on separate surveys. Since the panelists were not aware of the potential comparison, the comparison is not a ‘head-to-head’ comparison. Rather, the comparison is actually ‘what indications cardiac CT experts think are appropriate for cardiac CT’ vs ‘what indications cardiac MR experts think are appropriate for cardiac MR’. Although such comparison still gives us some reasonable insights on the appropriate choice of modality, ‘head-to-head’ comparison might be more desirable for appropriate use of cardiac CT and cardiac MR. However, in order to perform a ‘head-to-head’ comparison, we would need to subdivide the indications based on the patient’s age, sex, renal function, allergy to the contrast medium etc., which would run the risk of making the guidelines overly lengthy and complicated.
We expect that this ASCI 2010 cardiac MR appropriateness criteria report will serve as a timely and useful guide for the establishment of clinical cardiac MR services in Asian countries. ASCI will continue to pay close attention to this field and keep Asian practitioners updated about developments in cardiac MR and new indications as they arise.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Abbreviations
- ACCF
American College of Cardiology Foundation
- ARVD
Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia
- ASCI
Asian Society of Cardiovascular Imaging
- ASD
Atrial septal defect
- CABG
Coronary artery bypass graft
- CAD
Coronary artery disease
- CCT
Cardiac CT
- CHD
Coronary heart disease
- CMR
Cardiac MR
- CT
Computed tomography
- CTCA
CT coronary angiography
- ECG
Electrocardiogram
- JCCT
Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
- LV
Left ventricle
- MR
Magnetic resonance
- MRA
MR angiography
- MRCA
MR coronary angiography
- MRI
MR imaging
- PCI
Percutaneous coronary intervention
- RV
Right ventricle
- TEE
Transesophageal echocardiography
- VSD
Ventricular septal defect
Appendix
Ping Chai, MRCP (Cardiac Department, National University Heart Centre, Singapore), Anna K Chan, MB ChB (Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China), Liuquan Cheng, MD, PhD (Department of Radiology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China), Yeon Hyeon Choe, MD, PhD (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea), Sang Il Choi, MD, PhD (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea), Yuen Chi Ho, MBBS, FRCR, FHKCR (Department of Radiology, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China), John Huang, MB ChB, MRCP, FRCR (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore), Gham Hur, MD, PhD (Departments of Diagnostic Radiology, Inje University Ilsanpaik Hospital, Korea), Yasutaka Ichikawa, MD (Department of Radiology, Matsusaka Central Hospital, Matsusaka, Japan), Misako Iino, MD, PhD (Department of Radiology, Tokai University Hospital, Isehara, Japan), Shuichiro Kaji, MD, PhD (Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, Kobe, Japan), Tae Hoon Kim, MD (Department of Radiology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea), Sheung-Fat Ko, MD (Department of Radiology, Chang Gung university, College of Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-Kaohsiung Medical Center, Kaohsiung, Taiwan), Yasuyuki Kobayashi, MD (Department of Radiology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan), Rungroj Krittayaphong, MD, FACC, FESC (Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand), Jongmin Lee, MD, PhD (Department of Radiology, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Daegu, Korea), Whal Lee, MD (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea), Noiko Oyama, MD, PhD (Department of Radiology, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan), Pairoj Rerkpattanapipat, MD, FACC, FACP, FASE. (Division of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Thailand and Frye Heart Center, USA), Kunihiko Teraoka, MD, PhD (Department of Cardiology, Tokyo Medical University, Hachioji Medical Center, Hachioji, Japan), Wen-Yih Isaac Tseng, MD, PhD (Department of Medical Imaging, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan), Ming-Ting Wu, MD (Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan), Chun-Ho Yun, MD (Department of Radiology, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan), Shihua Zhao, MD (Department of Radiology, Cardiovascular Institute and Fuwai Hospital, Peking Union Medical University and Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Beijing, China).
Footnotes
Technical Panel Members of ASCI 2010 Cardiac MR Appropriateness Criteria have been processed in Appendix.
References
- 1.Kurian AK, Cardarelli KM. Racial and ethnic differences in cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review. Ethn Dis. 2007;17(1):143–152. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Chung RY, Schooling CM, Cowling BJ, et al. How does socioeconomic development affect risk of mortality? An age-period-cohort analysis from a recently transitioned population in China. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;171(3):345–356. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Goda A, Yamashita T, Suzuki S, et al. Prevalence and prognosis of patients with heart failure in Tokyo: a prospective cohort of Shinken Database 2004–5. Int Heart J. 2009;50(5):609–625. doi: 10.1536/ihj.50.609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Zheng Y, Stein R, Kwan T, et al. Evolving cardiovascular disease prevalence, mortality, risk factors, and the metabolic syndrome in China. Clin Cardiol. 2009;32(9):491–497. doi: 10.1002/clc.20605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.ASCI CCT & CMR Guideline Working Group. Tsai IC, Choi BW, et al. ASCI 2010 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography: a report of the Asian Society of Cardiovascular Imaging Cardiac Computed Tomography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guideline Working Group. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;26(Suppl 1):1–15. doi: 10.1007/s10554-009-9577-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Carbonaro S, Villines TC, Hausleiter J, et al. International, multidisciplinary update of the 2006 Appropriateness Criteria for cardiac computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2009;3(4):224–232. doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2009.05.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Patel MR, Spertus JA, Brindis RG, et al. ACCF proposed method for evaluating the appropriateness of cardiovascular imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(8):1606–1613. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.08.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hendel RC, Patel MR, Kramer CM, et al. ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(7):1475–1497. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ishida M, Kato S, Sakuma H. Cardiac MRI in ischemic heart disease. Circ J. 2009;73(9):1577–1588. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-09-0524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kaji S, Nasu M, Yamamuro A, et al. Annular geometry in patients with chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation: three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging study. Circulation. 2005;112(9 Suppl):I409–I414. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.525246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ichikawa Y, Sakuma H, Suzawa N, et al. Late gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in acute and chronic myocardial infarction. Improved prediction of regional myocardial contraction in the chronic state by measuring thickness of nonenhanced myocardium. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(6):901–909. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.11.058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Wu KC, Weiss RG, Thiemann DR, et al. Late gadolinium enhancement by cardiovascular magnetic resonance heralds an adverse prognosis in nonischemic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(25):2414–2421. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.03.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kwong RY, Chan AK, Brown KA, et al. Impact of unrecognized myocardial scar detected by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging on event-free survival in patients presenting with signs or symptoms of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2006;113(23):2733–2743. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.570648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Zhang Y, Yip GW, Chan AK, et al. Left ventricular systolic dyssynchrony is a predictor of cardiac remodeling after myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2008;156(6):1124–1132. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.07.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Krittayaphong R, Laksanabunsong P, Maneesai A, et al. Comparison of cardiovascular magnetic resonance of late gadolinium enhancement and diastolic wall thickness to predict recovery of left ventricular function after coronary artery bypass surgery. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2008;10(1):41. doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-10-41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Liu Q, Zhao S, Yan C, et al. Myocardial viability in chronic ischemic heart disease: comparison of delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging with 99mTc-sestamibi and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose single-photon emission computed tomography. Nucl Med Commun. 2009;30(8):610–616. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e32832b529e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ohira H, Tsujino I, Ishimaru S, et al. Myocardial imaging with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in sarcoidosis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35(5):933–941. doi: 10.1007/s00259-007-0650-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Yamada M, Teraoka K, Kawade M, et al. Frequency and distribution of late gadolinium enhancement in magnetic resonance imaging of patients with apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and patients with asymmetrical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a comparative study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;25(1):131–138. doi: 10.1007/s10554-008-9406-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Hahn JY, Gwon HC, Choe YH, et al. Effects of balloon-based distal protection during primary percutaneous coronary intervention on early and late infarct size and left ventricular remodeling: a pilot study using serial contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Am Heart J. 2007;153(4):665. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.01.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Kitagawa K, Sakuma H, Nagata M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion MRI and late gadolinium-enhanced MRI for detecting flow-limiting coronary artery disease: a multicenter study. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(12):2808–2816. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-1097-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kobayashi H, Yokoe I, Hirano M, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with pharmacological stress perfusion and delayed enhancement in asymptomatic patients with systemic sclerosis. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(1):106–112. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.080377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Gebker R, Jahnke C, Hucko T, et al. Dobutamine stress magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of coronary artery disease in women. Heart. 2010;96(8):616–620. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2009.175521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Rerkpattanapipat P, Little WC, Clark HP, et al. Effect of the transmural extent of myocardial scar on left ventricular systolic wall thickening during intravenous dobutamine administration. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95(4):495–498. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.10.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Sakuma H, Ichikawa Y, Chino S, et al. Detection of coronary artery stenosis with whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(10):1946–1950. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.07.055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Ko SF, Liang CD, Huang CC, et al. Clinical feasibility of free-breathing, gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for assessing extracardiac thoracic vascular abnormalities in young children with congenital heart diseases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;132(5):1092–1098. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.05.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Gebker R, Jahnke C, Manka R, et al. Additional value of myocardial perfusion imaging during dobutamine stress magnetic resonance for the assessment of coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1(2):122–130. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.108.779108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kwong RY. Imaging the physiology of the ischemic cascade: are 2 tools better than 1? Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1(2):92–93. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.108.816322. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Wu MT, Tseng WY, Su MY, et al. Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging mapping the fiber architecture remodeling in human myocardium after infarction: correlation with viability and wall motion. Circulation. 2006;114(10):1036–1045. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.545863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Chow PC, Liang XC, Cheung EW, et al. New two-dimensional global longitudinal strain and strain rate imaging for assessment of systemic right ventricular function. Heart. 2008;94(7):855–859. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2007.131862. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Yang Q, Li K, Liu X, et al. Contrast-enhanced whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0-T: a comparative study with X-ray angiography in a single center. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(1):69–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.03.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Nicol ED, Stirrup J, Underwood SR. CT coronary angiography: the continuing challenges of validating and optimizing a new and rapidly developing technique. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;24(8):905–906. doi: 10.1007/s10554-008-9348-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Dewey M, Zimmermann E, Deissenrieder F, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography by 320-row computed tomography with lower radiation exposure and maintained diagnostic accuracy: comparison of results with cardiac catheterization in a head-to-head pilot investigation. Circulation. 2009;120(10):867–875. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.859280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Rocha-Filho JA, Blankstein R, Shturman LD, et al. Incremental value of adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging with dual-source CT at cardiac CT angiography. Radiology. 2010;254(2):410–419. doi: 10.1148/radiol.09091014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(22):2324–2336. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0806576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Blankstein R, Shturman LD, Rogers IS, et al. Adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging using dual-source cardiac computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(12):1072–1084. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.06.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Cury RC, Nieman K, Shapiro MD, et al. Comprehensive assessment of myocardial perfusion defects, regional wall motion, and left ventricular function by using 64-section multidetector CT. Radiology. 2008;248(2):466–475. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2482071478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Sakuma H, Ichikawa Y, Suzawa N, et al. Assessment of coronary arteries with total study time of less than 30 minutes by using whole-heart coronary MR angiography. Radiology. 2005;237(1):316–321. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2371040830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Liu X, Zhao X, Huang J, et al. Comparison of 3D free-breathing coronary MR angiography and 64-MDCT angiography for detection of coronary stenosis in patients with high calcium scores. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(6):1326–1332. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kunimasa T, Sato Y, Matsumoto N, et al. Detection of coronary artery disease by free-breathing, whole heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography: our initial experience. Heart Vessels. 2009;24(6):429–433. doi: 10.1007/s00380-008-1143-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.