Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39002898›Full record

Observational studyJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2024

Regional variability of cardiovascular magnetic resonance access and utilization in the United States.

Jennifer M Li, David R Ho, Nazia Husain, Robert W Biederman, J Paul Finn, Anthon R Fuisz, Ibrahim M Saeed, Kim-Lien Nguyen

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance recommendations toward environmentally sustainable cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025
    Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Temporal trends and geographic accessibility to cardiac magnetic resonance readers across the United States: an analysis of Medicare Part B data.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
    Article
  17. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance worldwide: A global commitment to cardiovascular care.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jennifer M LiUniversity of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, Arizona, USA; David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
David R HoDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Nazia HusainLurie Children's Hospital and Northwestern University School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Robert W BiedermanWest Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA; Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Medical University of South Carolina and Roper St Francis Hospital, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
J Paul FinnDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Anthon R FuiszWestchester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York, USA.
Ibrahim M SaeedVirginia Heart, Falls Church, Virginia, USA; Inova Schar Heart and Vascular, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Kim-Lien NguyenDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA; VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA. Electronic address: klnguyen@ucla.edu.

Funding

Expanding on a new paradigm for MRI in pediatric congenital heart diseaseR01HL127153 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI CHRISTODOULOU, ANTHONY G, FINN, JOHN PAUL · 2015 to 2024
$6.1M
Ferumoxytol-Enhanced Cardiac MRI for Ischemic Heart DiseaseR01HL148182 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI NGUYEN, KIM-LIEN T · 2020 to 2024
$3.8M
Cardiac MRI for Reperfusion Spatial Mapping to Improve Heart Failure OutcomesR01HL169695 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Kim-Lien T Nguyen · 2023 to 2026
$2.7M
Tailoring Stress Cardiac MRI for Women with Ischemic Heart DiseaseI01CX001901 · VA · VA GREATER LOS ANGELES HEALTHCARE SYSTEM · PI NGUYEN, KIM-LIEN T · 2019 to 2025
–
CSRD VA I01 CX001901NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL127153NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL148182NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL169695
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical guidelines and scientific data increasingly support the appropriate use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) . The extent of CMR adoption across the United States (US) remains unclear. This observational analysis aims to capture CMR practice patterns in the US.

methodsCommissioned reports from the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR), pre-existing survey data from CMR centers, and socioeconomic and coronary heart disease data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were used. The location of imaging centers performing CMR was based on 2018 Medicare claims. Secondary analysis was performed on center-specific survey data from 2017-2019, which were collected by members of the SCMR US Advocacy Subcommittee for quality improvement purposes. The correlation between the number of imaging centers billing for CMR services per million persons, socioeconomic determinants, and coronary heart disease epidemiology was determined.

resultsA total of 591 imaging centers billed the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services for CMR services in 2018 and 112 (of 155) unique CMR centers responded to the survey. In 2018, CMR services were available in almost all 50 states. Minnesota was the state with the highest number of CMR centers per million Medicare beneficiaries (52.6 centers per million), and Maine had the lowest (4.4 per million). The total density of CMR centers was 16 per million for US Medicare beneficiaries. Sixty-eight percent (83 of 112) of survey responders were cardiologists, and 28% (31/112) were radiologists. In 72% (71/112) of centers, academic health care systems performed 81%-100% of CMR exams. The number of high-volume centers (>500 scans per year) increased by seven between 2017 and 2019. In 2019, 53% (59/112) of centers were considered high-volume centers and had an average of 19 years of experience. Centers performing <50 scans had on average 3.5 years of experience. Approximate patient wait time for a CMR exam was 2 weeks to 1 month.

conclusionDespite increasing volume and availability in almost all 50 states, CMR access remains geographically variable. Advocacy efforts to improve access and innovations that reduce imaging time and exam complexity have the potential to increase the adoption of CMR technology.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityMagnetic Resonance ImagingPractice Patterns, Physicians'Cardiovascular DiseasesHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Care SurveysHumansMedicarePredictive Value of TestsUnited StatesAdvocacyCardiovascular magnetic resonance imagingCost-effectivenessGeographic densityImaging accessUtilization

Identifiers

PMID39002898
PMCPMC11663765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.