Dyspnea-Suspected Cardiac Origin (Ischemia Already Excluded)

Variant: 1 Dyspnea due to suspected valvular heart disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US echocardiography transthoracic resting	Usually Appropriate	O
Radiography chest	Usually Appropriate	☢
US echocardiography transesophageal	May Be Appropriate	O
US echocardiography transthoracic stress	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI heart function and morphology without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI heart function and morphology without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT heart function and morphology with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Arteriography coronary with ventriculography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI heart function with stress without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI heart function with stress without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT coronary calcium	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CTA coronary arteries with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT heart	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Rb-82 PET/CT MPI rest and stress	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
SPECT or SPECT/CT MPI rest and stress	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Dyspnea due to suspected cardiac arrhythmia. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US echocardiography transthoracic resting	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI heart function and morphology without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
US echocardiography transesophageal	May Be Appropriate	O
Radiography chest	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢
MRI heart function and morphology without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT heart function and morphology with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT heart	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US echocardiography transthoracic stress	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Arteriography coronary with ventriculography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI heart function with stress without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI heart function with stress without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT coronary calcium	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CTA coronary arteries with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Rb-82 PET/CT MPI rest and stress	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
SPECT or SPECT/CT MPI rest and stress	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US echocardiography transthoracic resting	Usually Appropriate	O
Radiography chest	Usually Appropriate	☢
MRI heart function and morphology without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT heart function and morphology with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US echocardiography transesophageal	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI heart function and morphology without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT chest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CTA chest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT heart	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢☢☢☢
US echocardiography transthoracic stress	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Arteriography coronary with ventriculography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI heart function with stress without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI heart function with stress without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT coronary calcium	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CTA coronary arteries with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Rb-82 PET/CT MPI rest and stress	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
SPECT or SPECT/CT MPI rest and stress	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Dyspnea due to suspected valvular heart disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Dyspnea due to suspected valvular heart disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
A. Arteriography Coronary with Ventriculography

Variant 1: Dyspnea due to suspected valvular heart disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
B. CT Coronary Calcium

Variant 1: Dyspnea due to suspected valvular heart disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
C. CT Heart Function and Morphology

Variant 1: Dyspnea due to suspected valvular heart disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
D. CTA Coronary Arteries

Variant 1: Dyspnea due to suspected valvular heart disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
E. FDG-PET/CT Heart

Variant 1: Dyspnea due to suspected valvular heart disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Heart Function and Morphology

Variant 1: Dyspnea due to suspected valvular heart disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
G. MRI Heart Function with Stress

Variant 1: Dyspnea due to suspected valvular heart disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
H. Radiography Chest

Variant 1: Dyspnea due to suspected valvular heart disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
I. Rb-82 PET/CT Heart

Variant 1: Dyspnea due to suspected valvular heart disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
J. SPECT or SPECT/CT MPI Rest and Stress

Variant 1: Dyspnea due to suspected valvular heart disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
K. US Echocardiography Transesophageal

Variant 1: Dyspnea due to suspected valvular heart disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
L. US Echocardiography Transthoracic Resting

Variant 1: Dyspnea due to suspected valvular heart disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
M. US Echocardiography Transthoracic Stress

Variant 2: Dyspnea due to suspected cardiac arrhythmia. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.

Variant 2: Dyspnea due to suspected cardiac arrhythmia. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
A. Arteriography Coronary with Ventriculography

Variant 2: Dyspnea due to suspected cardiac arrhythmia. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
B. CT Coronary Calcium

Variant 2: Dyspnea due to suspected cardiac arrhythmia. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
C. CT Heart Function and Morphology

Variant 2: Dyspnea due to suspected cardiac arrhythmia. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
D. CTA Coronary Arteries

Variant 2: Dyspnea due to suspected cardiac arrhythmia. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
E. FDG-PET/CT Heart

Variant 2: Dyspnea due to suspected cardiac arrhythmia. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Heart Function and Morphology

Variant 2: Dyspnea due to suspected cardiac arrhythmia. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
G. MRI Heart Function with Stress

Variant 2: Dyspnea due to suspected cardiac arrhythmia. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
H. Radiography Chest

Variant 2: Dyspnea due to suspected cardiac arrhythmia. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
I. Rb-82 PET/CT Heart

Variant 2: Dyspnea due to suspected cardiac arrhythmia. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
J. SPECT or SPECT/CT MPI Rest and Stress

Variant 2: Dyspnea due to suspected cardiac arrhythmia. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
K. US Echocardiography Transesophageal

Variant 2: Dyspnea due to suspected cardiac arrhythmia. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
L. US Echocardiography Transthoracic Resting

Variant 2: Dyspnea due to suspected cardiac arrhythmia. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
M. US Echocardiography Transthoracic Stress

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
A. Arteriography Coronary with Ventriculography

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
B. CT Chest Without IV Contrast

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
C. CT Chest Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
D. CT Chest With IV Contrast

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
E. CT Coronary Calcium

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
F. CT Heart Function and Morphology

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
G. CTA Chest

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
H. CTA Coronary Arteries

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
I. FDG-PET/CT Heart

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
J. MRI Heart Function and Morphology

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
K. MRI Heart Function with Stress

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
L. Radiography Chest

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
M. Rb-82 PET/CT Heart

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
N. SPECT or SPECT/CT MPI Rest and Stress

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
O. US Echocardiography Transesophageal

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
P. US Echocardiography Transthoracic Resting

Variant 3: Dyspnea due to suspected pericardial disease. Ischemia excluded. Initial imaging.
Q. US Echocardiography Transthoracic Stress

Summary of Recommendations

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Parshall MB, Schwartzstein RM, Adams L, et al. An official American Thoracic Society statement: update on the mechanisms, assessment, and management of dyspnea. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;185(4):435-452.
2.	Budhwar N, Syed Z. Chronic Dyspnea: Diagnosis and Evaluation. Am Fam Physician 2020;101:542-48.
3.	Viniol A, Beidatsch D, Frese T, et al. Studies of the symptom dyspnoea: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract 2015;16:152.
4.	Pesola GR, Ahsan H. Dyspnea as an independent predictor of mortality. Clin Respir J 2016;10:142-52.
5.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Nonischemic Myocardial Disease with Clinical Manifestations (Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Already Excluded). Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/3082580/Narrative/.
6.	White RD, Kirsch J, Bolen MA, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected New-Onset and Known Nonacute Heart Failure. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:S418-S31.
7.	Croucher B. The challenge of diagnosing dyspnea. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2014;25(3):284-290.
8.	Do DH, Eyvazian V, Bayoneta AJ, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging using wideband sequences in patients with nonconditional cardiac implanted electronic devices. Heart Rhythm. 15(2):218-225, 2018 02.
9.	Hilbert S, Jahnke C, Loebe S, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a device-dependent imaging strategy for improved image quality. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 19(9):1051-1061, 2018 09 01.
10.	Hilbert S, Weber A, Nehrke K, et al. Artefact-free late gadolinium enhancement imaging in patients with implanted cardiac devices using a modified broadband sequence: current strategies and results from a real-world patient cohort. Europace. 20(5):801-807, 2018 05 01.
11.	Hong K, Jeong EK, Wall TS, Drakos SG, Kim D. Wideband arrhythmia-Insensitive-rapid (AIR) pulse sequence for cardiac T1 mapping without image artifacts induced by an implantable-cardioverter-defibrillator. Magn Reson Med. 74(2):336-45, 2015 Aug.
12.	Chava R, Assis F, Herzka D, Kolandaivelu A. Segmented radial cardiac MRI during arrhythmia using retrospective electrocardiogram and respiratory gating. Magn Reson Med. 81(3):1726-1738, 2019 03.
13.	Contijoch F, Iyer SK, Pilla JJ, et al. Self-gated MRI of multiple beat morphologies in the presence of arrhythmias. Magn Reson Med. 78(2):678-688, 2017 08.
14.	Contijoch F, Witschey WR, Rogers K, et al. User-initialized active contour segmentation and golden-angle real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance enable accurate assessment of LV function in patients with sinus rhythm and arrhythmias. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 17:37, 2015 May 21.
15.	Bhavnani SP, Sola S, Adams D, Venkateshvaran A, Dash PK, Sengupta PP. A Randomized Trial of Pocket-Echocardiography Integrated Mobile Health Device Assessments in Modern Structural Heart Disease Clinics. Jacc: Cardiovascular Imaging. 11(4):546-557, 2018 04.JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 11(4):546-557, 2018 04.
16.	Draper J, Subbiah S, Bailey R, Chambers JB. Murmur clinic: validation of a new model for detecting heart valve disease. Heart. 105(1):56-59, 2019 01.
17.	McGivery K, Atkinson P, Lewis D, et al. Emergency department ultrasound for the detection of B-lines in the early diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CJEM, Can. j. emerg. med. care. 20(3):343-352, 2018 05.
18.	Zanobetti M, Scorpiniti M, Gigli C, et al. Point-of-Care Ultrasonography for Evaluation of Acute Dyspnea in the ED. Chest. 151(6):1295-1301, 2017 06.Chest. 151(6):1295-1301, 2017 06.
19.	American College of Radiology. ACR–NASCI–SIR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Body Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=164+&releaseId=2.
20.	Abd Alamir M, Radulescu V, Goyfman M, et al. Prevalence and correlates of mitral annular calcification in adults with chronic kidney disease: Results from CRIC study. Atherosclerosis. 242(1):117-22, 2015 Sep.
21.	Chambers JB, Garbi M, Nieman K, et al. Appropriateness criteria for the use of cardiovascular imaging in heart valve disease in adults: a European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging report of literature review and current practice. [Review]. European heart journal cardiovascular Imaging. 18(5):489-498, 2017 05 01.Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 18(5):489-498, 2017 05 01.
22.	Bak SH, Ko SM, Song MG, Shin JK, Chee HK, Kim JS. Fused aortic valve without an elliptical-shaped systolic orifice in patients with severe aortic stenosis: cardiac computed tomography is useful for differentiation between bicuspid aortic valve with raphe and tricuspid aortic valve with commissural fusion. Eur Radiol. 25(4):1208-17, 2015 Apr.
23.	Cramer PM, Prakash SK. Misclassification of bicuspid aortic valves is common and varies by imaging modality and patient characteristics. Echocardiography. 36(4):761-765, 2019 04.
24.	Doherty JU, Kort S, Mehran R, et al. ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Multimodality Imaging in Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 31(4):381-404, 2018 04.
25.	Leipsic JA, Blanke P, Hanley M, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Imaging for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 14(11S):S449-S455, 2017 Nov.J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 14(11S):S449-S455, 2017 Nov.
26.	Basra SS, Gopal A, Hebeler KR, et al. Clinical Leaflet Thrombosis in Transcatheter and Surgical Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves by Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 106(6):1716-1725, 2018 12.Ann Thorac Surg. 106(6):1716-1725, 2018 12.
27.	Belhaj Soulami R, Verhoye JP, Nguyen Duc H, et al. Computer-Assisted Transcatheter Heart Valve Implantation in Valve-in-Valve Procedures. Innovations. 11(3):193-200, 2016 May-Jun.
28.	Harowicz MR, Shah A, Zimmerman SL. Preoperative Planning for Structural Heart Disease. [Review]. Radiologic Clinics of North America. 58(4):733-751, 2020 Jul.
29.	Ailawadi G, Agnihotri AK, Mehall JR, et al. Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery I: Patient Selection, Evaluation, and Planning. Innovations. 11(4):243-50, 2016 Jul-Aug.
30.	Alnabelsi TS, Alhamshari Y, Mulki RH, et al. Relation Between Epicardial Adipose and Aortic Valve and Mitral Annular Calcium Determined by Computed Tomography in Subjects Aged >=65 Years. Am J Cardiol. 118(7):1088-93, 2016 10 01.
31.	Myerson SG, d'Arcy J, Mohiaddin R, et al. Aortic regurgitation quantification using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: association with clinical outcome. Circulation 2012;126:1452-60.
32.	Uretsky S, Gillam L, Lang R, et al. Discordance between echocardiography and MRI in the assessment of mitral regurgitation severity: a prospective multicenter trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:1078-88.
33.	Di Leo G, D'Angelo ID, Ali M, et al. Intra- and inter-reader reproducibility of blood flow measurements on the ascending aorta and pulmonary artery using cardiac magnetic resonance. Radiol Med (Torino). 122(3):179-185, 2017 Mar.
34.	Karamitsos TD, Karvounis H. Magnetic resonance imaging is a safe technique in patients with prosthetic heart valves and coronary stents. HJC Hell. J. Cardiol.. 60(1):38-39, 2019 Jan - Feb.
35.	Cavalcante JL, Lalude OO, Schoenhagen P, Lerakis S. Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Structural and Valvular Heart Disease Interventions. [Review]. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 9(5):399-425, 2016 Mar 14.
36.	Elbaz MSM, Scott MB, Barker AJ, et al. Four-dimensional Virtual Catheter: Noninvasive Assessment of Intra-aortic Hemodynamics in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease. Radiology. 293(3):541-550, 2019 12.
37.	Collins JD, Semaan E, Barker A, et al. Comparison of Hemodynamics After Aortic Root Replacement Using Valve-Sparing or Bioprosthetic Valved Conduit. Ann Thorac Surg. 100(5):1556-62, 2015 Nov.
38.	Blanken CPS, Farag ES, Boekholdt SM, et al. Advanced cardiac MRI techniques for evaluation of left-sided valvular heart disease. [Review]. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 48(2):318-329, 2018 08.J Magn Reson Imaging. 48(2):318-329, 2018 08.
39.	Binter C, Gotschy A, Sundermann SH, et al. Turbulent Kinetic Energy Assessed by Multipoint 4-Dimensional Flow Magnetic Resonance Imaging Provides Additional Information Relative to Echocardiography for the Determination of Aortic Stenosis Severity. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 10(6), 2017 Jun.
40.	Garcia J, Barker AJ, Murphy I, et al. Four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging-based characterization of aortic morphometry and haemodynamics: impact of age, aortic diameter, and valve morphology. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 17(8):877-84, 2016 Aug.
41.	Bui AH, Roujol S, Foppa M, et al. Diffuse myocardial fibrosis in patients with mitral valve prolapse and ventricular arrhythmia. Heart. 103(3):204-209, 2017 02.
42.	Dejgaard LA, Skjolsvik ET, Lie OH, et al. The Mitral Annulus Disjunction Arrhythmic Syndrome. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 72(14):1600-1609, 2018 10 02.J Am Coll Cardiol. 72(14):1600-1609, 2018 10 02.
43.	Bennett S, Thamman R, Griffiths T, et al. Mitral annular disjunction: A systematic review of the literature. Echocardiography. 36(8):1549-1558, 2019 08.
44.	Lempel JK, Bolen MA, Renapurkar RD, Azok JT, White CS. Radiographic Evaluation of Valvular Heart Disease With Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Correlation. [Review]. J Thorac Imaging. 31(5):273-84, 2016 Sep.
45.	Aquila I, Gonzalez A, Fernandez-Golfin C, et al. Reproducibility of a novel echocardiographic 3D automated software for the assessment of mitral valve anatomy. Cardiovasc. ultrasound. 14(1):17, 2016 May 17.
46.	Cersit S, Gunduz S, Ozan Gursoy M, et al. Relationship Between Pulmonary Venous Flow and Prosthetic Mitral Valve Thrombosis. J Heart Valve Dis. 27(1):65-70, 2018 Jan.
47.	Eibel S, Turton E, Mukherjee C, Bevilacqua C, Ender J. Feasibility of measurements of valve dimensions in en-face-3D transesophageal echocardiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 33(10):1503-1511, 2017 Oct.
48.	Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22(9):975-1014; quiz 1082-1014.
49.	Ewen S, Karliova I, Weber P, et al. Echocardiographic criteria to detect unicuspid aortic valve morphology. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 20(1):40-44, 2019 01 01.
50.	Jain R, Ammar KA, Kalvin L, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of bicuspid aortic valve by echocardiography. Echocardiography. 35(12):1932-1938, 2018 12.
51.	Evangelista A, Gallego P, Calvo-Iglesias F, et al. Anatomical and clinical predictors of valve dysfunction and aortic dilation in bicuspid aortic valve disease. Heart. 104(7):566-573, 2018 04.
52.	Cremer PC, Rodriguez LL, Griffin BP, et al. Early Bioprosthetic Valve Failure: Mechanistic Insights via Correlation between Echocardiographic and Operative Findings. [Review]. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 28(10):1131-48, 2015 Oct.
53.	Cho IJ, Hong GR, Lee SH, et al. Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch after Mitral Valve Replacement: Comparison of Different Methods of Effective Orifice Area Calculation. Yonsei Medical Journal. 57(2):328-36, 2016 Mar.Yonsei Med J. 57(2):328-36, 2016 Mar.
54.	Abudiab MM, Chebrolu LH, Schutt RC, Nagueh SF, Zoghbi WA. Doppler Echocardiography for the Estimation of LV Filling Pressure in Patients With Mitral Annular Calcification. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 10(12):1411-1420, 2017 12.
55.	d'Arcy JL, Coffey S, Loudon MA, et al. Large-scale community echocardiographic screening reveals a major burden of undiagnosed valvular heart disease in older people: the OxVALVE Population Cohort Study. Eur Heart J. 37(47):3515-3522, 2016 Dec 14.
56.	Gardezi SKM, Myerson SG, Chambers J, et al. Cardiac auscultation poorly predicts the presence of valvular heart disease in asymptomatic primary care patients. Heart. 104(22):1832-1835, 2018 11.
57.	Argulian E, Seetharam K. Echocardiographic 3D-guided 2D planimetry in quantifying left-sided valvular heart disease. [Review]. Echocardiography. 35(5):695-706, 2018 05.
58.	Cheng Y, Gao H, Tang L, Li J, Yao L. Clinical utility of three-dimensional echocardiography in the evaluation of tricuspid regurgitation induced by implantable device leads. Echocardiography. 33(11):1689-1696, 2016 Nov.
59.	Cameli M, Sciaccaluga C, Mandoli GE, D'Ascenzi F, Tsioulpas C, Mondillo S. The role of the left atrial function in the surgical management of aortic and mitral valve disease. [Review]. Echocardiography. 36(8):1559-1565, 2019 08.
60.	Hulshof HG, van Dijk AP, George KP, Hopman MTE, Thijssen DHJ, Oxborough DL. Exploratory assessment of left ventricular strain-volume loops in severe aortic valve diseases. J Physiol (Lond). 595(12):3961-3971, 2017 06 15.
61.	Aquila I, Frati G, Sciarretta S, Dellegrottaglie S, Torella D, Torella M. New imaging techniques project the cellular and molecular alterations underlying bicuspid aortic valve development. [Review]. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 129:197-207, 2019 04.
62.	Gentry Iii JL, Phelan D, Desai MY, Griffin BP. The Role of Stress Echocardiography in Valvular Heart Disease: A Current Appraisal. [Review]. Cardiology. 137(3):137-150, 2017.
63.	Nakajima T, Kimura F, Kajimoto K, Kasanuki H, Hagiwara N. Utility of ECG-gated MDCT to differentiate patients with ARVC/D from patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2013;7:223-33.
64.	Cochet H, Denis A, Komatsu Y, et al. Automated Quantification of Right Ventricular Fat at Contrast-enhanced Cardiac Multidetector CT in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy. Radiology 2015;275:683-91.
65.	Aliyari Ghasabeh M, Te Riele ASJM, James CA, et al. Epicardial Fat Distribution Assessed with Cardiac CT in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia/Cardiomyopathy. Radiology. 289(3):641-648, 2018 12.
66.	Jacobson JT.. Role of Imaging in the Management of Ventricular Arrhythmias. [Review]. Cardiol Rev. 27(6):308-313, 2019 Nov/Dec.
67.	Esposito A, Palmisano A, Antunes S, et al. Cardiac CT With Delayed Enhancement in the Characterization of Ventricular Tachycardia Structural Substrate: Relationship Between CT-Segmented Scar and Electro-Anatomic Mapping. Jacc: Cardiovascular Imaging. 9(7):822-832, 2016 Jul.
68.	Yamashita S, Sacher F, Mahida S, et al. Role of high-resolution image integration to visualize left phrenic nerve and coronary arteries during epicardial ventricular tachycardia ablation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2015;8:371-80.
69.	Klein C, Brunereau J, Lacroix D, et al. Left atrial epicardial adipose tissue radiodensity is associated with electrophysiological properties of atrial myocardium in patients with atrial fibrillation. Eur Radiol. 29(6):3027-3035, 2019 Jun.
70.	Gupta A, Harrington M, Albert CM, et al. Myocardial Scar But Not Ischemia Is Associated With Defibrillator Shocks and Sudden Cardiac Death in Stable Patients With Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 4(9):1200-1210, 2018 09.
71.	Kim EK, Chattranukulchai P, Klem I. Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Scar Imaging for Sudden Cardiac Death Risk Stratification in Patients with Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy. [Review]. Korean J Radiol. 16(4):683-95, 2015 Jul-Aug.
72.	Hen Y, Takara A, Iguchi N, et al. High Signal Intensity on T2-Weighted Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predicts Life-Threatening Arrhythmic Events in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients. Circ J. 82(4):1062-1069, 2018 03 23.
73.	Hulten E, Agarwal V, Cahill M, et al. Presence of Late Gadolinium Enhancement by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Among Patients With Suspected Cardiac Sarcoidosis Is Associated With Adverse Cardiovascular Prognosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. [Review]. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 9(9):e005001, 2016 Sep.
74.	Di Marco A, Anguera I, Schmitt M, et al. Late Gadolinium Enhancement and the Risk for Ventricular Arrhythmias or Sudden Death in Dilated Cardiomyopathy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. [Review]. JACC Heart Fail. 5(1):28-38, 2017 01.
75.	Disertori M, Rigoni M, Pace N, et al. Myocardial Fibrosis Assessment by LGE Is a Powerful Predictor of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias in Ischemic and Nonischemic LV Dysfunction: A Meta-Analysis. [Review]. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 9(9):1046-1055, 2016 09.
76.	Ekstrom K, Lehtonen J, Hanninen H, Kandolin R, Kivisto S, Kupari M. Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Predictor of Survival Free of Life-Threatening Arrhythmias and Transplantation in Cardiac Sarcoidosis. J Am Heart Assoc. 5(5), 2016 05 02.
77.	Balaban G, Halliday BP, Bai W, et al. Scar shape analysis and simulated electrical instabilities in a non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy patient cohort. PLoS Comput Biol. 15(10):e1007421, 2019 10.
78.	Bissell LA, Dumitru RB, Erhayiem B, et al. Incidental significant arrhythmia in scleroderma associates with cardiac magnetic resonance measure of fibrosis and hs-TnI and NT-proBNP. Rheumatology (Oxford). 58(7):1221-1226, 2019 07 01.
79.	Acosta J, Fernandez-Armenta J, Borras R, et al. Scar Characterization to Predict Life-Threatening Arrhythmic Events and Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: The GAUDI-CRT Study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 11(4):561-572, 2018 04.
80.	Jablonowski R, Chaudhry U, van der Pals J, et al. Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance to Predict Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Ischemic and Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Patients Using Late Gadolinium Enhancement Border Zone: Comparison of Four Analysis Methods. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 10(9), 2017 Sep.
81.	Boyle PM, Zghaib T, Zahid S, et al. Computationally guided personalized targeted ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation. Nat. biomed. eng.. 3(11):870-879, 2019 11.
82.	Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Baritussio A, Auricchio A. Cardiac MRI Anatomy and Function as a Substrate for Arrhythmias. [Review]. Europace. 18(suppl 4):iv130-iv135, 2016 12.
83.	Marcus FI, McKenna WJ, Sherrill D, et al. Diagnosis of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia: proposed modification of the Task Force Criteria. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(7):806-814.
84.	Chiang KF, Cheng CM, Tsai SC, et al. Relationship of myocardial substrate characteristics as assessed by myocardial perfusion imaging and cardiac reverse remodeling levels after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Ann Nucl Med. 30(7):484-93, 2016 Aug.
85.	Aguade-Bruix S, Romero-Farina G, Candell-Riera J, Pizzi MN, Garcia-Dorado D. Mechanical dyssynchrony according to validated cut-off values using gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 25(3):999-1008, 2018 06.
86.	Chen Z, Bai W, Li C, et al. Left Atrial Appendage Parameters Assessed by Real-Time Three-Dimensional Transesophageal Echocardiography Predict Thromboembolic Risk in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation. J Ultrasound Med. 36(6):1119-1128, 2017 Jun.
87.	Akhabue E, Seok Park C, Pinney S, et al. Usefulness of Speckle Tracking Strain Echocardiography for Assessment of Risk of Ventricular Arrhythmias After Placement of a Left Ventricular Assist Device. Am J Cardiol. 120(9):1578-1583, 2017 Nov 01.
88.	Kim M, Kim J, Lee JH, et al. Impact of Improved Left Ventricular Systolic Function on the Recurrence of Ventricular Arrhythmia in Heart Failure Patients With an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 27(10):1191-1198, 2016 10.
89.	Delgado-Montero A, Tayal B, Goda A, et al. Additive Prognostic Value of Echocardiographic Global Longitudinal and Global Circumferential Strain to Electrocardiographic Criteria in Patients With Heart Failure Undergoing Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 9(6), 2016 Jun.
90.	Hasselberg NE, Haugaa KH, Bernard A, et al. Left ventricular markers of mortality and ventricular arrhythmias in heart failure patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 17(3):343-50, 2016 Mar.
91.	Barros MV, Leren IS, Edvardsen T, et al. Mechanical Dispersion Assessed by Strain Echocardiography Is Associated with Malignant Arrhythmias in Chagas Cardiomyopathy. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 29(4):368-74, 2016 Apr.
92.	Barutcu A, Bekler A, Temiz A, et al. Assessment of the effects of frequent ventricular extrasystoles on the left ventricle using speckle tracking echocardiography in apparently normal hearts. Anatol J Cardiol. 16(1):48-54, 2016 Jan.
93.	Gorcsan J 3rd, Sogaard P, Bax JJ, et al. Association of persistent or worsened echocardiographic dyssynchrony with unfavourable clinical outcomes in heart failure patients with narrow QRS width: a subgroup analysis of the EchoCRT trial. Eur Heart J. 37(1):49-59, 2016 Jan 01.
94.	Akyel A, Yayla KG, Erat M, et al. Relationship between Epicardial Adipose Tissue Thickness and Atrial Electromechanical Delay in Hypertensive Patients. Echocardiography. 32(10):1498-503, 2015 Oct.
95.	Canpolat U, Aytemir K, Yorgun H, Asil S, Dural M, Ozer N. The Impact of Echocardiographic Epicardial Fat Thickness on Outcomes of Cryoballoon-Based Atrial Fibrillation Ablation. Echocardiography. 33(6):821-9, 2016 Jun.
96.	Dereli S, Bayramoglu A, Yontar OC, Cersit S, Gursoy MO. Epicardial fat thickness: A new predictor of successful electrical cardioversion and atrial fibrillation recurrence. Echocardiography. 35(12):1926-1931, 2018 12.
97.	Kanat S, Duran Karaduman B, Tutuncu A, Tenekecioglu E, Mutluer FO, Akar Bayram N. Effect of Echocardiographic Epicardial Adipose Tissue Thickness on Success Rates of Premature Ventricular Contraction Ablation. Balkan Med. J.. 36(6):324-330, 2019 10 28.
98.	Kang MK, Joung B, Shim CY, et al. Post-operative left atrial volume index is a predictor of the occurrence of permanent atrial fibrillation after mitral valve surgery in patients who undergo mitral valve surgery. Cardiovasc. ultrasound. 16(1):5, 2018 Mar 09.
99.	Lazaros G, Antonopoulos AS, Imazio M, et al. Clinical significance of pleural effusions and association with outcome in patients hospitalized with a first episode of acute pericarditis. Internal & Emergency Medicine. 14(5):745-751, 2019 08.Intern. emerg. medicine. 14(5):745-751, 2019 08.
100.	Chetrit M, Xu B, Verma BR, Klein AL. Multimodality Imaging for the Assessment of Pericardial Diseases. [Review]. Current Cardiology Reports. 21(5):41, 2019 04 16.Curr Cardiol Rep. 21(5):41, 2019 04 16.
101.	Maleszewski JJ, Anavekar NS. Neoplastic Pericardial Disease. [Review]. Cardiology Clinics. 35(4):589-600, 2017 Nov.Cardiol Clin. 35(4):589-600, 2017 Nov.
102.	Xu B, Kwon DH, Klein AL. Imaging of the Pericardium: A Multimodality Cardiovascular Imaging Update. [Review]. Cardiology Clinics. 35(4):491-503, 2017 Nov.Cardiol Clin. 35(4):491-503, 2017 Nov.
103.	Lazaros G, Antonopoulos AS, Oikonomou EK, et al. Prognostic implications of epicardial fat volume quantification in acute pericarditis. European Journal of Clinical Investigation. 47(2):129-136, 2017 Feb.Eur J Clin Invest. 47(2):129-136, 2017 Feb.
104.	Chang SA, Choi JY, Kim EK, et al. [(18)F]Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT Predicts Response to Steroid Therapy in Constrictive Pericarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:750-52.
105.	Kim MS, Kim EK, Choi JY, Oh JK, Chang SA. Clinical Utility of [18F]FDG-PET /CT in Pericardial Disease. [Review]. Curr Cardiol Rep. 21(9):107, 2019 08 02.
106.	Bolen MA, Rajiah P, Kusunose K, et al. Cardiac MR imaging in constrictive pericarditis: multiparametric assessment in patients with surgically proven constriction. The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging. 31(4):859-66, 2015 Apr.Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 31(4):859-66, 2015 Apr.
107.	Cremer PC, Kumar A, Kontzias A, et al. Complicated Pericarditis: Understanding Risk Factors and Pathophysiology to Inform Imaging and Treatment. [Review]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 68(21):2311-2328, 2016 11 29.
108.	Alraies MC, AlJaroudi W, Yarmohammadi H, et al. Usefulness of cardiac magnetic resonance-guided management in patients with recurrent pericarditis. American Journal of Cardiology. 115(4):542-7, 2015 Feb 15.Am J Cardiol. 115(4):542-7, 2015 Feb 15.
109.	Kumar A, Sato K, Yzeiraj E, et al. Quantitative Pericardial Delayed Hyperenhancement Informs Clinical Course in Recurrent Pericarditis. Jacc: Cardiovascular Imaging. 10(11):1337-1346, 2017 11.JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 10(11):1337-1346, 2017 11.
110.	Zhou W, Srichai MB. Multi-modality Imaging Assessment of Pericardial Masses. [Review]. Curr Cardiol Rep. 19(4):32, 2017 04.
111.	Ha JW, Andersen OS, Smiseth OA. Diastolic Stress Test: Invasive and Noninvasive Testing. [Review]. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 13(1 Pt 2):272-282, 2020 01.
112.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.