ACR–NASCI–SPR PRACTICE PARAMETER FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF QUANTIFICATION OF CARDIOVASCULAR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY (CT) AND MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING (MRI)

PREAMBLE

INTRODUCTION

II.

INDICATIONS

III.

QUALIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PERSONNEL

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Morphological evaluation

Cardiac Gating

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Morphological evaluation

Measurements

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Morphological evaluation

Attenuation (region-of-interest characterization)

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Velocity and Flow Quantification: PC-MRI

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Quantitative Techniques specific to cardiac MRI and CT

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Quantitative Techniques specific to cardiac MRI and CT

Myocardium

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Quantitative Techniques specific to cardiac MRI and CT

Cardiac chambers:

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Quantitative Techniques specific to cardiac MRI and CT

Myocardial function

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Quantitative Techniques specific to cardiac MRI and CT

Myocardial Perfusion

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Quantitative Techniques specific to cardiac MRI and CT

LGE

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Quantitative Techniques specific to cardiac MRI and CT

T2-weighted and T2 mapping sequences cardiac MR

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Quantitative Techniques specific to cardiac MRI and CT

Coronary artery calcium scoring

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Quantitative Techniques specific to cardiac MRI and CT

Pericardial disease

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Quantitative Techniques specific to cardiac MRI and CT

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR)

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Quantitative Techniques specific to cardiac MRI and CT

10.

Transmitral Valve Replacement (TMVR)

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Quantitative Techniques specific to cardiac MRI and CT

11.

Pre- and postimplantation LAA closure device imaging

DOCUMENTATION

VI.

EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS

VII.

QUALITY CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT, SAFETY, INFECTION CONTROL, AND PATIENT EDUCATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

REFERENCES

1. American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Parameter for Performing and Interpreting Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=146+&releaseId=2
2. American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR Practice Parameter for Performing and Interpreting Diagnostic Computed Tomography (CT). Available at https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=132+&releaseId=2
3. Cody DD, Mahesh M. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: Technologic advances in multidetector CT with a focus on cardiac imaging. Radiographics. 2007;27(6):1829-37.
4. Cury RC, Abbara S, Achenbach S, et al. CAD-RADSTM: Coronary Artery Disease - Reporting and Data System: An Expert Consensus Document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT), the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging (NASCI). Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 13(12 Pt A):1458-1466.e9, 2016 Dec.
5. Nørgaard BL, Fairbairn TA, Safian RD, et al. Coronary CT Angiography-derived Fractional Flow Reserve Testing in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Recommendations on Interpretation and Reporting. Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2019 Dec;1(5):e190050.
6. Matsunaga N, Hayashi K, Sakamoto I, et al. Takayasu arteritis: MR manifestations and diagnosis of acute and chronic phase. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;8(2):406-14.
7. Rosero EB, Peshock RM, Khera A, Clagett P, Lo H, Timaran CH. Sex, race, and age distributions of mean aortic wall thickness in a multiethnic population-based sample. J Vasc Surg. 53(4):950-7, 2011 Apr.
8. Hauser TH, Yeon SB, Kissinger KV, Josephson ME, Manning WJ. Variation in pulmonary vein size during the cardiac cycle: implications for non-electrocardiogram-gated imaging. Am Heart J. 2006 Nov;152(5):974.e1-6.
9. Bryce Y, Rogoff P, Romanelli D, Reichle R. Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: vascular anatomy, device selection, procedure, and procedure-specific complications. Radiographics. 35(2):593-615, 2015 Mar-Apr.
10. Buckley O, Rybicki FJ, Gerson DS, et al. Imaging features of intramural hematoma of the aorta. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010 Jan;26(1):65-76.
11. Saremi F, Achenbach S. Coronary plaque characterization using CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Mar;204(3):W249-60.
12. Pflederer T, Marwan M, Schepis T, et al. Characterization of culprit lesions in acute coronary syndromes using coronary dual-source CT angiography. Atherosclerosis. 2010 Aug;211(2):437-44.
13. Lotz J, Meier C, Leppert A, Galanski M. Cardiovascular flow measurement with phase-contrast MR imaging: basic facts and implementation. Radiographics. 2002;22(3):651-71.
14. Hodnett PA, Glielmi CB, Davarpanah AH, et al. Inline directionally independent peak velocity evaluation reduces error in peak antegrade velocity estimation in patients referred for cardiac valvular assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Feb;198(2):344-50.
15. Srichai MB, Lim RP, Wong S, Lee VS. Cardiovascular applications of phase-contrast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Mar;192(3):662-75.
16. Carr JC, Finn JP. MR imaging of the thoracic aorta. [Review] [49 refs]. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 11(1):135-48, 2003 Feb.
17. Frydrychowicz A, Markl M, Hirtler D, et al. Aortic hemodynamics in patients with and without repair of aortic coarctation: in vivo analysis by 4D flow-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2011 May;46(5):317-25.
18. Jeong HJ, Vakil P, Sheehan JJ, et al. Time-resolved magnetic resonance angiography: evaluation of intrapulmonary circulation parameters in pulmonary arterial hypertension. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Jan;33(1):225-31.
19. Korosec FR, Frayne R, Grist TM, Mistretta CA. Time-resolved contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography. Magn Reson Med. 1996 Sep;36(3):345-51.
20. Beerbaum P, Korperich H, Gieseke J, Barth P, Peuster M, Meyer H. Rapid left-to-right shunt quantification in children by phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging combined with sensitivity encoding (SENSE). Circulation. 2003;108(11):1355-1361.
21. Varaprasathan GA, Araoz PA, Higgins CB, Reddy GP. Quantification of flow dynamics in congenital heart disease: applications of velocity-encoded cine MR imaging. Radiographics. 2002;22(4):895-905; discussion 905-6.
22. Whitehead KK, Gillespie MJ, Harris MA, Fogel MA, Rome JJ. Noninvasive quantification of systemic-to-pulmonary collateral flow: a major source of inefficiency in patients with superior cavopulmonary connections. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Sep;2(5):405-11.
23. Grosse-Wortmann L, Drolet C, Dragulescu A, et al. Aortopulmonary collateral flow volume affects early postoperative outcome after Fontan completion: a multimodality study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012 Dec;144(6):S0022-5223(12)00347-9.
24. Odenwald T, Quail MA, Giardini A, et al. Systemic to pulmonary collateral blood flow influences early outcomes following the total cavopulmonary connection. Heart. 2012 Jun;98(12):934-40.
25. Glatz AC, Rome JJ, Small AJ, et al. Systemic-to-pulmonary collateral flow, as measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, is associated with acute post-Fontan clinical outcomes. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(2):218-225.
26. Garg P, Swift AJ, Zhong L, et al. Assessment of mitral valve regurgitation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. [Review]. Nature Reviews Cardiology. 17(5):298-312, 2020 05.Nat Rev Cardiol. 17(5):298-312, 2020 05.
27. Myerson SG, d'Arcy J, Christiansen JP, et al. Determination of Clinical Outcome in Mitral Regurgitation With Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Quantification. Circulation. 2016 Jun 07;133(23):2287-96.
28. American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American Heart Association, et al. ACCF/ASE/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR 2011 Appropriate Use Criteria for Echocardiography. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance American College of Chest Physicians. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 24(3):229-67, 2011 Mar.
29. Grothues F, Smith GC, Moon JC, et al. Comparison of interstudy reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance with two-dimensional echocardiography in normal subjects and in patients with heart failure or left ventricular hypertrophy. Am J Cardiol. 2002 Jul 01;90(1):29-34.
30. Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jan;28(1):S0894-7317(14)00745-7.
31. Natori S, Lai S, Finn JP, et al. Cardiovascular function in multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis: normal values by age, sex, and ethnicity. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Jun;186(6 Suppl 2):S357-65.
32. Salton CJ, Chuang ML, O'Donnell CJ, et al. Gender differences and normal left ventricular anatomy in an adult population free of hypertension. A cardiovascular magnetic resonance study of the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Mar 20;39(6):1055-60.
33. Lin FY, Devereux RB, Roman MJ, et al. Cardiac chamber volumes, function, and mass as determined by 64-multidetector row computed tomography: mean values among healthy adults free of hypertension and obesity. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008 Nov;1(6):782-6.
34. Lorenz CH, Walker ES, Morgan VL, Klein SS, Graham TP. Normal human right and left ventricular mass, systolic function, and gender differences by cine magnetic resonance imaging. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 1999;1(1):7-21.
35. Cheng S, Fernandes VR, Bluemke DA, McClelland RL, Kronmal RA, Lima JA. Age-related left ventricular remodeling and associated risk for cardiovascular outcomes: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 May;2(3):191-8.
36. Lorenz CH. The range of normal values of cardiovascular structures in infants, children, and adolescents measured by magnetic resonance imaging. Pediatr Cardiol. 2000;21(1):37-46.
37. Hori Y, Yamada N, Higashi M, Hirai N, Nakatani S. Rapid evaluation of right and left ventricular function and mass using real-time true-FISP cine MR imaging without breath-hold: comparison with segmented true-FISP cine MR imaging with breath-hold. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2003 Jul;5(3):439-50.
38. Papavassiliu T, Kühl HP, Schröder M, et al. Effect of endocardial trabeculae on left ventricular measurements and measurement reproducibility at cardiovascular MR imaging. Radiology. 2005 Jul;236(1):57-64.
39. Winter MM, Bernink FJ, Groenink M, et al. Evaluating the systemic right ventricle by CMR: the importance of consistent and reproducible delineation of the cavity. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2008 Aug 19;10(1):40.
40. Moon JC, Lorenz CH, Francis JM, Smith GC, Pennell DJ. Breath-hold FLASH and FISP cardiovascular MR imaging: left ventricular volume differences and reproducibility. Radiology. 2002 Jun;223(3):789-97.
41. Hudsmith LE, Petersen SE, Tyler DJ, et al. Determination of cardiac volumes and mass with FLASH and SSFP cine sequences at 1.5 vs. 3 Tesla: a validation study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006 Aug;24(2):312-8.
42. Alfakih K, Plein S, Thiele H, Jones T, Ridgway JP, Sivananthan MU. Normal human left and right ventricular dimensions for MRI as assessed by turbo gradient echo and steady-state free precession imaging sequences. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003 Mar;17(3):323-9.
43. Sandstede J, Lipke C, Beer M, et al. Age- and gender-specific differences in left and right ventricular cardiac function and mass determined by cine magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2000;10(3):438-42.
44. Sievers B, Kirchberg S, Bakan A, Franken U, Trappe HJ. Impact of papillary muscles in ventricular volume and ejection fraction assessment by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2004;6(1):9-16.
45. Han Y, Osborn EA, Maron MS, Manning WJ, Yeon SB. Impact of papillary and trabecular muscles on quantitative analyses of cardiac function in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Nov;30(5):1197-202.
46. Schulz-Menger J, Bluemke DA, Bremerich J, et al. Standardized image interpretation and post processing in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) board of trustees task force on standardized post processing. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 May 01;15(1):35.
47. Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, et al. Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2002 Jan 29;105(4):539-42.
48. Heuschmid M, Rothfuss JK, Schroeder S, et al. Assessment of left ventricular myocardial function using 16-slice multidetector-row computed tomography: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography. Eur Radiol. 2006 Mar;16(3):551-9.
49. Childs H, Ma L, Ma M, et al. Comparison of long and short axis quantification of left ventricular volume parameters by cardiovascular magnetic resonance, with ex-vivo validation. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011 Aug 11;13(1):40.
50. Gurvitz M, Burns KM, Brindis R, et al. Emerging Research Directions in Adult Congenital Heart Disease: A Report From an NHLBI/ACHA Working Group. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Apr 26;67(16):S0735-1097(16)00709-9.
51. Krishnamurthy R, Suman G, Chan SS, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Congenital or Acquired Heart Disease. J Am Coll Radiol 2023;20:S351-S81.
52. Bellenger NG, Grothues F, Smith GC, Pennell DJ. Quantification of right and left ventricular function by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Herz. 2000 Jun;25(4):392-9.
53. Kawel-Boehm N, Hetzel SJ, Ambale-Venkatesh B, et al. Reference ranges ("normal values") for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in adults and children: 2020 update. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2020 Dec 14;22(1):87.
54. Mahabadi AA, Samy B, Seneviratne SK, et al. Quantitative assessment of left atrial volume by electrocardiographic-gated contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2009;3(2):80-7.
55. Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Leschka S, et al. Reference values for quantitative left ventricular and left atrial measurements in cardiac computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 2008 Aug;18(8):1625-34.
56. Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Trindade PT, et al. Left ventricular and left atrial dimensions and volumes: comparison between dual-source CT and echocardiography. Invest Radiol. 2008 May;43(5):284-9.
57. Stojanovska J, Cronin P, Patel S, et al. Reference normal absolute and indexed values from ECG-gated MDCT: left atrial volume, function, and diameter. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Sep;197(3):631-7.
58. Boyd AC, Thomas L. Left atrial volumes: two-dimensional, three-dimensional, cardiac magnetic resonance and computed tomography measurements. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2014 Sep;29(5):408-16.
59. Whitlock M, Garg A, Gelow J, Jacobson T, Broberg C. Comparison of left and right atrial volume by echocardiography versus cardiac magnetic resonance imaging using the area-length method. Am J Cardiol. 2010 Nov 01;106(9):1345-50.
60. Kühl JT, Lønborg J, Fuchs A, et al. Assessment of left atrial volume and function: a comparative study between echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging and multi slice computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Jun;28(5):1061-71.
61. Attili AK, Schuster A, Nagel E, Reiber JH, van der Geest RJ. Quantification in cardiac MRI: advances in image acquisition and processing. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010 Feb;26 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):27-40.
62. Fieno DS, Kim RJ, Chen EL, Lomasney JW, Klocke FJ, Judd RM. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of myocardium at risk: distinction between reversible and irreversible injury throughout infarct healing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Nov 15;36(6):1985-91.
63. Caiani EG, Toledo E, MacEneaney P, et al. Automated interpretation of regional left ventricular wall motion from cardiac magnetic resonance images. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2006;8(3):427-33.
64. Tilak GS, Hsu LY, Hoyt RF, Arai AE, Aletras AH. In vivo T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging can accurately determine the ischemic area at risk for 2-day-old nonreperfused myocardial infarction. Invest Radiol. 2008 Jan;43(1):7-15.
65. Contractor S, Maldjian PD, Sharma VK, Gor DM. Role of helical CT in detecting right ventricular dysfunction secondary to acute pulmonary embolism. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2002;26(4):587-91.
66. Ghaye B, Ghuysen A, Willems V, et al. Severe pulmonary embolism:pulmonary artery clot load scores and cardiovascular parameters as predictors of mortality. Radiology. 2006 Jun;239(3):884-91.
67. Truong QA, Bhatia HS, Szymonifka J, et al. A four-tier classification system of pulmonary artery metrics on computed tomography for the diagnosis and prognosis of pulmonary hypertension. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 12(1):60-66, 2018 Jan - Feb.
68. Caro-Domínguez P, Compton G, Humpl T, Manson DE. Pulmonary arterial hypertension in children: diagnosis using ratio of main pulmonary artery to ascending aorta diameter as determined by multi-detector computed tomography. Pediatr Radiol. 2016 Sep;46(10):1378-83.
69. Kuriyama K, Gamsu G, Stern RG, Cann CE, Herfkens RJ, Brundage BH. CT-determined pulmonary artery diameters in predicting pulmonary hypertension. Invest Radiol. 1984; 19(1):16-22.
70. Boxt LM. MR imaging of pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular dysfunction. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 1996; 4(2):307-325.
71. van der Meer RW, Pattynama PM, van Strijen MJ, et al. Right ventricular dysfunction and pulmonary obstruction index at helical CT: prediction of clinical outcome during 3-month follow-up in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Radiology. 2005;235(3):798-803.
72. Mastora I, Remy-Jardin M, Masson P, et al. Severity of acute pulmonary embolism: evaluation of a new spiral CT angiographic score in correlation with echocardiographic data. Eur Radiol. 2003 Jan;13(1):29-35.
73. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N, et al. MR-IMPACT II: Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary artery disease Trial: perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs. single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicentre, multivendor trial. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(10):775-781.
74. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, van Rossum AC, et al. MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 29(4):480-9, 2008 Feb.
75. Patel AR, Bamberg F, Branch K, et al. Society of cardiovascular computed tomography expert consensus document on myocardial computed tomography perfusion imaging. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2020;14(1):S1934-5925(19)30532-5.
76. de Jong MC, Genders TS, van Geuns RJ, Moelker A, Hunink MG. Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(9):1881-1895.
77. Okada DR, Ghoshhajra BB, Blankstein R, et al. Direct comparison of rest and adenosine stress myocardial perfusion CT with rest and stress SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17(1):27-37.
78. Kim RJ, Chen EL, Lima JA, Judd RM. Myocardial Gd-DTPA kinetics determine MRI contrast enhancement and reflect the extent and severity of myocardial injury after acute reperfused infarction. Circulation. 1996 Dec 15;94(12):3318-26.
79. Wong TC, Piehler K, Meier CG, et al. Association between extracellular matrix expansion quantified by cardiovascular magnetic resonance and short-term mortality. Circulation. 2012 Sep 04;126(10):1206-16.
80. Kim RJ, Wu E, Rafael A, et al. The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to identify reversible myocardial dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 16;343(20):1445-53.
81. Gibbons RJ, Valeti US, Araoz PA, Jaffe AS. The quantification of infarct size. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Oct 19;44(8):1533-42.
82. Kwon DH, Asamoto L, Popovic ZB, et al. Infarct characterization and quantification by delayed enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is a powerful independent and incremental predictor of mortality in patients with advanced ischemic cardiomyopathy. Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging. 7(5):796-804, 2014 Sep.
83. Ghannam M, Siontis KC, Cochet H, et al. Risk stratification in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and ventricular arrhythmias based on quantification of intramural delayed enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Jul;31(7):1762-1769.
84. 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.
85. Kwon DH, Setser RM, Popovic ZB, et al. Association of myocardial fibrosis, electrocardiography and ventricular tachyarrhythmia in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a delayed contrast enhanced MRI study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008 Aug;24(6):617-25.
86. Spiewak M, Malek LA, Misko J, et al. Comparison of different quantification methods of late gadolinium enhancement in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Eur J Radiol. 2010 Jun;74(3):e149-53.
87. American College of Radiology. ACR-NASCI-SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Available at https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=179+&releaseId=2
88. Karamitsos TD, Piechnik SK, Banypersad SM, et al. Noncontrast T1 mapping for the diagnosis of cardiac amyloidosis. Jacc: Cardiovascular Imaging. 6(4):488-97, 2013 Apr.
89. Haaf P, Garg P, Messroghli DR, Broadbent DA, Greenwood JP, Plein S. Cardiac T1 Mapping and Extracellular Volume (ECV) in clinical practice: a comprehensive review. [Review]. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 18(1):89, 2016 Nov 30.
90. Captur G, Bhandari A, Brühl R, et al. T1 mapping performance and measurement repeatability: results from the multi-national T1 mapping standardization phantom program (T1MES). J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2020 May 07;22(1):31.
91. Messroghli DR, Moon JC, Ferreira VM, et al. Clinical recommendations for cardiovascular magnetic resonance mapping of T1, T2, T2* and extracellular volume: A consensus statement by the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) endorsed by the European Association for Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI).[Erratum appears in J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018 Feb 7;20(1):9; PMID: 29415744]. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 19(1):75, 2017 Oct 09.
92. Hombach V, Grebe O, Merkle N, et al. Sequelae of acute myocardial infarction regarding cardiac structure and function and their prognostic significance as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Heart J. 2005 Mar;26(6):549-57.
93. Giri S, Shah S, Xue H, et al. Myocardial T2 mapping with respiratory navigator and automatic nonrigid motion correction. Magn Reson Med. 2012 Nov;68(5):1570-8.
94. von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff F, Prothmann M, Dieringer MA, et al. Myocardial T1 and T2 mapping at 3 T: reference values, influencing factors and implications. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 Jun 18;15(1):53.
95. Church TS, Levine BD, McGuire DK, et al. Coronary artery calcium score, risk factors, and incident coronary heart disease events. Atherosclerosis. 2007 Jan;190(1):224-31.
96. Greenland P, LaBree L, Azen SP, Doherty TM, Detrano RC. Coronary artery calcium score combined with Framingham score for risk prediction in asymptomatic individuals. JAMA. 2004 Jan 14;291(2):210-5.
97. Polzer S, Gasser TC, Swedenborg J, Bursa J. The impact of intraluminal thrombus failure on the mechanical stress in the wall of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011 Apr;41(4):467-73.
98. Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ, Zusmer NR, Viamonte M, Jr., Detrano R. Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;15(4):827-832.
99. HORT W, BRAEUN H. [Studies on the dimensions, wall thickness and microscopic structure of the pericardium in normal and pathological conditions]. Arch Kreislaufforsch. 1962 Jun;38():1-22.
100. Sechtem U, Tscholakoff D, Higgins CB. MRI of the normal pericardium. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986 Aug;147(2):239-44.
101. Kåsin JI, Kjellevand TO, Kjekshus J, Nesheim GB, Wagstaff A. CT examination of the pericardium and lungs in helicopter pilots exposed to vibration and noise. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2012 Sep;83(9):858-64.
102. Delille JP, Hernigou A, Sene V, et al. Maximal thickness of the normal human pericardium assessed by electron-beam computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 1999;9(6):1183-9.
103. Wang ZZ, Reddy GG, Gotway MM, Yeh BB, Hetts SS, Higgins CC. CT and MR imaging of pericardial disease. Radiographics 23 Spec No:S167-80, .
104. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(23):2187-2198.
105. Gopal A, Grayburn PA, Mack M, et al. Noncontrast 3D CMR imaging for aortic valve annulus sizing in TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Mar;8(3):S1936-878X(14)01044-4.
106. Blanke P, Weir-McCall JR, Achenbach S, et al. Computed Tomography Imaging in the Context of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI)/Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): An Expert Consensus Document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. [Review]. Jacc: Cardiovascular Imaging. 12(1):1-24, 2019 01.JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 12(1):1-24, 2019 01.
107. Wang DD, Eng MH, Greenbaum AB, et al. Validating a prediction modeling tool for left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction after transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR). Catheterization & Cardiovascular Interventions. 92(2):379-387, 2018 08 01.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 92(2):379-387, 2018 08 01.
108. Reddy VY, Sievert H, Halperin J, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure vs warfarin for atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014 Nov 19;312(19):1988-98.
109. Belgaid DR, Khan Z, Zaidi M, Hobbs A. Prospective randomized evaluation of the watchman left atrial appendage closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: The PREVAIL trial. Int J Cardiol. 2016 Sep 15;219():S0167-5273(16)31038-5.
110. Prosper A, Shinbane J, Maliglig A, Saremi F, Wilcox A, Lee C. Left Atrial Appendage Mechanical Exclusion: Procedural Planning Using Cardiovascular Computed Tomographic Angiography. [Review]. J Thorac Imaging. 35(4):W107-W118, 2020 Jul.
111. Saw J, Fahmy P, DeJong P, et al. Cardiac CT angiography for device surveillance after endovascular left atrial appendage closure. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 16(11):1198-206, 2015 Nov.
112. Rajiah P, Alkhouli M, Thaden J, Foley T, Williamson E, Ranganath P. Pre- and Postprocedural CT of Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Closure Devices. Radiographics. 41(3):680-698, 2021 May-Jun.
113. American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Parameter for Communication of Diagnostic Imaging Findings. Available at https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=74+&releaseId=2
114. American College of Radiology. ACR–AAPM Technical Standard for Diagnostic Medical Physics Performance Monitoring of Computed Tomography (CT) Equipment. Available at https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=131+&releaseId=2
115. American College of Radiology. ACR–AAPM Technical Standard for Diagnostic Medical Physics Performance Monitoring of Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging Equipment. Available at https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=57+&releaseId=2