Stress cardiovascular MR in routine clinical practice: referral patterns, accuracy, tolerance, safety and incidental findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The use of stress cardiovascular MR (CMR) to evaluate myocardial ischaemia has increased significantly over recent years. We aimed to assess the indications, incidental findings, tolerance, safety and accuracy of stress CMR in routine clinical practice. METHODS: We retrospectively examined all stress CMR studies performed at our tertiary referral centre over a 20-month period. Patients were scanned at 1.5 T, using a standardised protocol with routine imaging for late gadolinium enhancement. Angiograms of patients were assessed by an interventional cardiologist blinded to the CMR data. RESULTS: 654 patients were scanned (mean age 65±29 years; 63 inpatients; 9.6%). 14% of patients had incidental extracardiac findings, the commonest being liver or renal cysts (6%) and pulmonary nodules (4%). 639 patients (97.7%) received intravenous adenosine, 10 received intravenous dobutamine and 5 patients had both. Of the 15 patients who received dobutamine, 12 had no side-effects/complications, 2 experienced nausea and 1 chest tightness. Of the 644 patients who received adenosine, 43% experienced minor symptoms, 1% had transient heart block and 0.2% had severe bronchospasm requiring termination of infusion. There were no cases of hospitalisation or myocardial infarction. 241 patients also had coronary angiography. For detecting at least moderate stenosis of ≥50%, sensitivity was 86%, specificity 98% and accuracy 89%. For detecting severe stenoses of ≥70%, sensitivity was 91%, specificity 86% and overall accuracy 90%. These results compare very favourably with previous smaller research studies and meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: We conclude that stress CMR, with adenosine as the main stress agent, is well tolerated, safe and accurate in routine clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".