Search

Purpose To provide a comprehensive head-to-head comparison and temporal analysis of cardiac MRI indications between the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines to identify areas of consensus and divergence. Materials and Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines published until May 2023 were systematically screened for recommendations related to cardiac MRI. The class of recommendation (COR) and level of evidence (LOE) for cardiac MRI recommendations were compared between the two guidelines and between newer versus older versions of each guideline using χ 2 or Fisher exact tests. Results ESC guidelines included 109 recommendations regarding cardiac MRI, and ACC/AHA guidelines included 90 recommendations. The proportion of COR I and LOE B was higher in ACC/AHA versus ESC guidelines (60% [54 of 90] vs 46.8% [51 of 109]; P = .06 and 53% [48 of 90] vs 35.8% [39 of 109], respectively; P = .01). The increase in the number of cardiac MRI recommendations over time was significantly higher in ESC guidelines (from 63 to 109 for ESC vs from 65 to 90 for ACC/AHA; P = .03). The main areas of consensus were found in heart failure and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, while the main divergences were in valvular heart disease, arrhythmias, and aortic disease. Conclusion ESC guidelines included more recommendations related to cardiac MRI use, whereas the ACC/AHA recommendations had higher COR and LOE. The number of cardiac MRI recommendations increased significantly over time in both guidelines, indicating the increasing role of cardiac MRI evaluation and management of cardiovascular disease. Keywords: Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, Guideline, European Society of Cardiology, ESC, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, ACC/AHA Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

Aims: The 2018 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) and 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) lipid guidelines recently updated their recommendations regarding proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin-9 inhibitors (PCSK9i). We assessed the potential eligibility for PCSK9i according to the new guidelines in patients with acute coronary syndromes., Methods and Results: We analysed a contemporary, prospective Swiss cohort of patients hospitalised for acute coronary syndromes. We modelled a statin intensification effect and an incremental ezetimibe effect on low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels among patients who were not on high-intensity statins or ezetimibe. One year after the index acute coronary syndrome event, treatment eligibility for PCSK9i was defined as low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol of 1.4 mmol/l or greater according to ESC/EAS guidelines. For ACC/AHA guidelines, treatment eligibility was defined as low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol of 1.8 mmol/l or greater in the presence of very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, defined by multiple major atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events and/or high-risk conditions. Of 2521 patients, 93.2% were treated with statins (53% high-intensity statins) and 7.3% with ezetimibe at 1 year, and 54.9% had very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels less than 1.8 mmol/l and less than 1.4 mmol/l at 1 year were observed in 37.5% and 15.7% of patients, respectively. After modelling the statin intensification and ezetimibe effects, these numbers increased to 76.1% and 49%, respectively. The proportion of patients eligible for PCSK9i was 51% according to ESC/EAS criteria versus 14% according to ACC/AHA criteria., Conclusions: In this analysis, the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines rendered half of all post-acute coronary syndrome patients potentially eligible for PCSK9i treatment, as compared to a three-fold lower eligibility rate based on the 2018 ACC/AHA guidelines., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)