Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40946968›Full record

ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2025

Cardiac magnetic resonance versus echocardiography: An analysis examining risk reclassification by left ventricular ejection fraction and cost burden analysis.

Annie J Tsay, Kinpritma Sangha, Linda Lee, Shuo Wang, Seban Liu, Arslan Zahid, Maria Poonawalla, Roberto M Lang, Christopher M Kramer, Amit R Patel

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

10 authors.

Annie J TsayDepartment of Medicine, Cambridge Health Alliance/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Kinpritma SanghaSiemens Medical Solutions, Malvern, Pennsylvania, USA.
Linda LeeDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illnois, USA.
Shuo WangDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Seban LiuRiverside Medical Group in Kankakee Division of Cardiology, Kankakee, Illinois, USA.
Arslan ZahidDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Maria PoonawallaDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Roberto M LangDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Christopher M KramerDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Amit R PatelDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. Electronic address: apatel@virginia.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHeart failure (HF) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States and is projected to increase in the next decade. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is used to guide optimal medical therapy and is typically quantified using two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) due to ease of accessibility and cost. However, LVEF measurements by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) are considered the gold standard due to their accuracy and precision. Despite this, CMR is not the first imaging modality selected for LVEF evaluation due to perceptions of long study time, high cost, and inaccessibility. Our study aims to determine the cost of imaging studies (e.g., CMR, TTE) relative to the overall HF-related health care costs and associated outcomes.

methodsA retrospective single-center cohort study of 420 participants with same-day TTE and CMR from 2009-2019, including participants >18 years of age with good image quality with or at risk for cardiovascular disease. Primary outcome was a composite outcome defined as HF admission, left ventricular assist device, cardiovascular disease-related death, heart transplantation, and implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation. HF risk groups were determined based on clinically relevant LVEF cutoffs. All costs were calculated and adjusted to 2022 US$.

resultsParticipants were 49 ± 17 years old, 52% (219/420) female, 50% (209/420) White, and 41% (174/420) Black. Median follow-up was 4 years. HF was the most common co-morbidity (31%). LVEF measured by CMR predicted HF outcomes better than TTE (p = 0.005). Continuous net reclassification index of CMR LVEF was 0.36 (95% confidence interval: 0.16-0.56); p = 0.001 due to predominant reclassification to lower risk groups. On an individual level, HF health care cost increased from low- to high-risk groups irrespective of modality. High-risk individuals classified by CMR had lower average per-person HF health care costs compared to TTE counterparts. Cost of CMR and TTE was <1% of the total HF health care cost.

conclusionThe cost of non-invasive imaging studies accounted for <1% of the cost compared to other components of HF care. Downstream cost prediction based on LVEF classification using CMR has the potential to better predict cost burden compared to TTE in patients with HF.

Indexed as

EchocardiographyHealth Care CostsHeart FailureMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance Imaging, CineStroke VolumeVentricular Function, LeftAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisCardiovascular imagingcardiovascular magnetic resonanceCost burden analysisEchocardiographyHealth economicsHeart failure

Identifiers

PMID40946968
PMCPMC12719529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.