Search

Background: With multifaceted imaging capabilities, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is playing a progressively increasing role in the management of various cardiac conditions. A global registry that harmonizes data from international centers, with participation policies that aim to be open and inclusive of all CMR programs, can support future evidence-based growth in CMR. Methods: The Global CMR Registry (GCMR) was established in 2013 under the auspices of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR). The GCMR team has developed a web-based data infrastructure, data use policy and participation agreement, data-harmonizing methods, and site-training tools based on results from an international survey of CMR programs. Results: At present, 17 CMR programs have established a legal agreement to participate in GCMR, amongst them 10 have contributed CMR data, totaling 62,456 studies. There is currently a predominance of CMR centers with more than 10 years of experience (65%), and the majority are located in the United States (63%). The most common clinical indications for CMR have included assessment of cardiomyopathy (21%), myocardial viability (16%), stress CMR perfusion for chest pain syndromes (16%), and evaluation of etiology of arrhythmias or planning of electrophysiological studies (15%) with assessment of cardiomyopathy representing the most rapidly growing indication in the past decade. Most CMR studies involved the use of gadolinium-based contrast media (95%). Conclusions: We present the goals, mission and vision, infrastructure, preliminary results, and challenges of the GCMR. Trial registration: Identification number on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02806193. Registered 17 June 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) continues to be one of the top public health burden. Perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is generally accepted to detect CAD, while data on its cost effectiveness are scarce. Therefore, the goal of the study was to compare the costs of a CMR-guided strategy vs two invasive strategies in a large CMR registry. Methods: In 3'647 patients with suspected CAD of the EuroCMR-registry (59 centers/18 countries) costs were calculated for diagnostic examinations (CMR, X-ray coronary angiography (CXA) with/without FFR), revascularizations, and complications during a 1-year follow-up. Patients with ischemia-positive CMR underwent an invasive CXA and revascularization at the discretion of the treating physician (=CMR + CXA-strategy). In the hypothetical invasive arm, costs were calculated for an initial CXA and a FFR in vessels with ≥50 % stenoses (=CXA + FFR-strategy) and the same proportion of revascularizations and complications were applied as in the CMR + CXA-strategy. In the CXA-only strategy, costs included those for CXA and for revascularizations of all ≥50 % stenoses. To calculate the proportion of patients with ≥50 % stenoses, the stenosis-FFR relationship from the literature was used. Costs of the three strategies were determined based on a third payer perspective in 4 healthcare systems. Results: Revascularizations were performed in 6.2 %, 4.5 %, and 12.9 % of all patients, patients with atypical chest pain (n =1'786), and typical angina (n = 582), respectively; whereas complications (=all-cause death and non-fatal infarction) occurred in 1.3 %, 1.1 %, and 1.5 %, respectively. The CMR + CXA-strategy reduced costs by 14 %, 34 %, 27 %, and 24 % in the German, UK, Swiss, and US context, respectively, when compared to the CXA + FFR-strategy; and by 59 %, 52 %, 61 % and 71 %, respectively, versus the CXA-only strategy. In patients with typical angina, cost savings by CMR + CXA vs CXA + FFR were minimal in the German (2.3 %), intermediate in the US and Swiss (11.6 % and 12.8 %, respectively), and remained substantial in the UK (18.9 %) systems. Sensitivity analyses proved the robustness of results. Conclusions: A CMR + CXA-strategy for patients with suspected CAD provides substantial cost reduction compared to a hypothetical CXA + FFR-strategy in patients with low to intermediate disease prevalence. However, in the subgroup of patients with typical angina, cost savings were only minimal to moderate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]