Aortic Valve Regurgitation, Aortic Valve Stenosis, Congenital Heart Disease, Coronary Artery Disease, Dilated Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy, Infiltrative Cardiomyopathy, Myocarditis, Pericardial Effusion, Vascular Anomaly
Conditions
Brief summary
This study aims to identify and assess new CMR techniques that can improve current CMR protocols.
Detailed description
The aim of this study is to develop a comprehensive 10-minute protocol based on function and myocardial tissue characterization without the need for contrast injection, which can be standardized for 70% of cardiac patients. To test this 10-minute CMR protocol for its ability to significantly improve diagnostic decision-making and to reduce cost. To test its clinical feasibility, performance and cost-effectiveness in different populations including: Non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (-)OS-CMR and Ischemic Heart Disease and CAD (+)OS-CMR
Interventions
None listed
Sponsors
McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre
Study design
Observational model
OTHER
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
Healthy Volunteers Inclusion Criteria: * Age: \> 18y, Informed consent No known current or pre-existing significant medical conditions that would affect the cardiovascular or respiratory system
Exclusion criteria
* General MRI contraindications: MR- incompatible devices such as pacemakers, defibrillators, or implanted material or foreign bodies. Consumption of caffeinated drinks or foods (including cocoa and chocolate) during the 12 hours prior to the exam.Regular nicotine consumption during the last 6 months Patients Inclusion Criteria: * Age: \>18 y, Informed consent, Clinically indicated CMR exam
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Primary diagnosis comparison between SMART CMR and standard CMR | 2019-2025 | (All patients) Agreement of the suggested primary diagnosis derived from SMART CMR, compared with the diagnosis established from standard CMR protocols, using the final clinical diagnosis as established by the treating physician, as a standard of truth. If the latter is not available, the conclusions based on the results of the standard CMR protocol will be used as the standard of truth. |
| Main finding comparison between SMART CMR and standard CMR in patients with suspected coronary artery disease | 2019-2025 | (Patients with suspected coronary artery disease:) Agreement of the main finding regarding the presence of a coronary territory at risk for inducible myocardial ischemia myocardial derived from OS-CMR, compared with standard first-pass perfusion CMR, using the coronary angiography report as a standard of truth. If the latter is not available, the conclusions based on the results of the standard CMR first pass perfusion scan will be used as the standard of truth. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| OS-CMR scan completion percentage | 2019-2025 | Proportion of OS-CMR scans that could be completed according to the protocol |
| Adverse event monitoring during SMART CMR sequences | 2019-2025 | Number and proportion of reported adverse events effects during SMART CMR |
| Adverse event monitoring during OS-CMR sequence | 2019-2025 | Number and proportion of reported adverse events during OS-CMR |
| SMART CMR sequence times vs standard protocol sequence times | 2019-2025 | Observed scan time for SMART CMR compared with the standard CMR protocol |
| OS-CMR sequence times vs standard protocol sequence times | 2019-2025 | Observed scan time for for OS-CMR during breathing maneuvers compared with the standard CMR first-pass perfusion protocol |
| Cost comparison of SMART CMR vs standard CMR protocol | 2019-2025 | Total estimated cost of SMART CMR compared with the standard CMR protocol |
| Cost comparison of OS-CMR vs standard CMR protocol | 2019-2025 | Total cost of OS-CMR with breathing maneuvers (based on scan time) vs the standard CMR first-pass perfusion protocol (calculated from the scan time plus any other material such as contrast agents or pharmacological vasodilators) |
| Septal myocardial T2 vs standard myocardial T2 | 2019-2025 | Septal myocardial T2 as estimated from SMART CMR, compared with results from standard myocardial mapping |
| Quantitative parameter comparison between SMART CMR and CINE images | 2019-2025 | Quantitative parameters relevant to the diagnosis (see Appendix: CanSCMR Recommendations for reporting CMR) measured in SMART CMR images, compared with results from standard CMR cine images |
| Strain measurements vs standard cine image measurements | 2019-2025 | Longitudinal and circumferential strain measurements measured in SMART CMR images, compared with results from standard CMR cine images |
| SMART-CMR post-stenotic peak flow vs standard CMR flow images | 2019-2025 | Post-stenotic peak flow velocity in patients with suspected valvular disease measured in SMART CMR images, compared with results from standard CMR flow images |
| Intra- and inter-reader reproducibility | 2019-2025 | Correlation coefficients will be obtained to evaluate the intra- and inter-reader reproducibility of all quantitative markers. |
| Inter- and intra-scanner variability | 2019-2025 | Inter- and intra- scanner variability as assessed by ICC and kappa |
| Septal myocardial T1 vs standard myocardial T1 | 2019-2025 | Septal myocardial T1 as estimated from SMART CMR, compared with results from standard myocardial mapping |
| SMART CMR scan completion percentage | 2019-2025 | Proportion of SMART CMR scans that could be completed according to the protocol |
Countries
Canada
Contacts
Primary ContactElizabeth Konidis
Backup ContactAdonis Rodaros
Outcome results
None listed