Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]77773
• Clinical Guidelines & Expert Consensus •
The standardized image interpretation and post-processing interpretation of SCMR: 2020 update
WANG Jiaxin  YIN Gang  HE Guangjun  ZHAO Shihua 

Cite this article as: Wang JX, Yin G, He GJ, et al. The standardized image interpretation and post-processing interpretation of SCMR: 2020 update. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2020, 11(10): 843-847. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2020.10.002.


[Abstract] In the last issue, we interpreted the 2020 version of standardized cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging protocols published by Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR). In this issue, we will further interpret the 2020 version of standardized image interpretation and post-processing. It is true that the clinical application of CMR is more and more extensive, but in view of the diversity of CMR techniques and quantitative parameters, agreement on specific standards for the interpretation and post-processing of CMR studies is required to ensure consistent quality and reproducibility of CMR reports. In order to provide relevant reference, in this article, we mainly interpreted the requirements and standards for image interpretation and post-processing and discussed the pitfalls of image analysis where appropriately.
[Keywords] cardiovascular magnetic resonance；image interpretation；post-processing；criteria update；expert consensus

WANG Jiaxin Department of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing 100037, China

YIN Gang Department of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing 100037, China

HE Guangjun* Publishing House of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Corp.Ltd., Beijing 100190, China

ZHAO Shihua* Department of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing 100037, China

*Correspondence to: Zhao SH, E-mail: cjr.zhaoshihua@vip.163.com He GJ, E-mail: guangjunhe@126.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  This work was part of Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 81930044 Key Program of International Cooperation and Exchanges NSFC No. 81620108015
Received  2020-07-09
Accepted  2020-08-21
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2020.10.002
Cite this article as: Wang JX, Yin G, He GJ, et al. The standardized image interpretation and post-processing interpretation of SCMR: 2020 update. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2020, 11(10): 843-847. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2020.10.002.

[1]
Jeanette SM, David AB, Jens B, et al. Standardized image interpretation and post-processing in cardiovascular magnetic resonance-2020 update Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR): board of trustees task force on standardized post-processing. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson, 2020, 22(1): 19. DOI: 10.1186/s12968-020-00610-6.
[2]
Hundley WG, Bluemke D, Bogaert JG, et al. Society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance guidelines for reporting cardiovascular magnetic resonance examinations. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson, 2009, 11(1): 5. DOI: 10.1186/1532-429X-11-5.
[3]
Christopher MK, Jörg B, Chiara BD, et al. Standardized cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) protocols: 2020 update. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson, 2020, 22(1): 17. DOI: 10.1186/s12968-020-00607-1.
[4]
Manisty C, Ripley DP, Herrey AS, et al. Splenic switch-off: A tool to assess stress adequacy in adenosine perfusion cardiac MR imaging. Radiology, 2015, 276(3): 732-740. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015142059.
[5]
Masaki I, Andreas S, Geraint M, et al. Development of a universal dualbolus injection scheme for the quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson, 2011, 13(1): 28. DOI: 10.1186/1532-429X-13-28.
[6]
Peter K, Michael SH, Sonia NV, et al. Myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance: optimized dual sequence and reconstruction for quantification. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson, 2017, 19(1): 43. DOI: 10.1186/s12968-017-0355-5.
[7]
Michael JH, Norbert W, Wang Y, et al. Direct comparison of an intravascular and an extracellular contrast agent for quantification of myocardial perfusion. Int J Cardiovas Imag, 1999, 15(6): 453-464.
[8]
Louise AEB, Sebastian CO, David AB, et al. Fully automated, inline quantification of myocardial blood flow with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: repeatability of measurements in healthy subjects. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson, 2018, 20(1): 48. DOI: 10.1186/s12968-018-0462-y.
[9]
Jerosch-Herold M, Swingen C, Seethamraju RT. Myocardial blood flow quantification with MRI by model-independent deconvolution. Med Phys, 2002, 29(5): 886-897. DOI: 10.1118/1.1473135.
[10]
Li-Yueh H, Matthew J, Mitchel B, et al. Diagnostic performance of fully automated pixel-wise quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging, 2018, 11(5): 697-707. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.01.005.
[11]
Treibel TA, Fontana M, Maestrini V, et al. Automatic measurement of the myocardial interstitium: Synthetic extracellular volume quantification without hematocrit sampling. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging, 2016, 9(1): 54-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.11.008.
[12]
Matthias GF, Udo S, Jeanette SM, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in myocarditis: A JACC white paper [J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009, 53(17): 1475-1487. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.02.007.

PREV Brief comment on imaging mimicking pathology of heart diseases
NEXT The relationship between the abnormal trigeminal root structure and the changes of local brain activity in classic trigeminal neuralgia patients
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn