Introduction
Background
Purpose of this guidelines manuscript
Selection of Writing Committee Members
Document development process
Document approval
Class of recommendation and level of evidence
Class (strength) of recommendation (COR) | Level of evidence (LOE) |
---|---|
Class I (strong) Benefit > > > Risk The procedure should be performed Suggested phrases for recommendations: • Is recommended • Is indicated/useful/effective/beneficial • Should be performed | Level A • High quality evidence from multiple randomized clinical trials or meta-analyses • One or more randomized clinical trials corroborated by high quality registry studies |
Class IIa (moderate) Benefit > > Risk It is reasonable to perform the procedure. Additional studies with focused objectives needed Suggested phrases for recommendations: • Is resonable • Can be useful/effective/beneficial • Is probably recommended or indicated | Level B • Moderate quality evidence from multiple randomized clinical trials or meta-analyses • Moderate quality evidence from 1 or more well-designed, well-executed nonrandomized studies, observational studied or registry studies or meta-analysis of such studies |
Class IIb (weak) Benefit > Risk The procedure may be considered. Additional studies with broad objectives needed. Additional registry data would be helpful Suggested phrases for recommendations: • May/might be considered • May/might be reasonable • Useful/effectiveness is unknown/unclear/uncertain or not well established | Level C • Randomized or nonrandomized observational or registry studies with limitations of design or execution or meta-analysis of such studies • Physiologic or mechanistic studies in humans • Consensus of expert opinion based on clinical experience |
Class III No Benefit The procedure is not helpful and of no proven benefit Suggested phrases for recommendations: • Is not recommended • Is not indicated • Should not be performed/administered • Is not useful/beneficial/effective | Notes COR and LOE are determined independently (any COR may be paired with any LOE) |
Class III Harm The procedure incurs excess cost without benefit or is harmful to patients Suggested phrases for recommendations: • Is potentially harmful • Causes harm • Associated with excess morbidity/mortality • Should not be performed/administered | A recommendation with LOE B or C does not imply the recommendation is weak. May important clinical questions addressed in guidelines do not lend themselves to clinical trials. Although randomized clinical trials are unavailable, there may be very clear clinical consensus that a particular test is useful or effective |
Diseases
Single ventricle
Background
Indication of CMR in SV
Anatomy | Ventricular function |
---|---|
Viscero-atrial situs, ventricular morphology and cardiac segments | Ventricular EDV |
Aortic arch, aimed mostly at patients with an aortic to pulmonary anastomosis, to assess for aortic arch obstruction | Ventricular ESV |
Pulmonary artery, to assess for pulmonary artery stenosis, hypoplasia, discontinuity | Ventricular stroke volume |
Atrial septal defect | Ventricular EF |
Ventricular outflow tract obstruction (especially in patients with a bulboventricular foramen) | Cardiac index |
Systemic-pulmonary and veno-veno collaterals | Regional wall motion |
Anomalous venous structures | |
Pulmonary or systemic venous obstruction Systemic venous return such as interrupted inferior vena cava with azygous continuation or the presence of a left superior vena cava |
CMR prior to BDG and Fontan reconstructions
Summary of recommendations
-
Preoperatively or prior to commitment to either a univentricular or biventricular circulation, CMR is reasonable to determine anatomy, physiology and ventricular function not elucidated by echocardiography or to aid in determining one vs. two ventricle repair (Class IIa, Level of evidence B).
-
Prior to BDG, if there is no primary indication for an intervention or there is no indication of increased pressures or pulmonary vascular resistance by echocardiography, CMR is indicated to determine anatomy, physiology, hemodynamics and ventricular function for use in surgical planning in routine cases (Class I, Level of evidence B). See Table 2
-
Prior to Fontan, if there is no primary indication for an intervention or there is no indication of increased pressures (e.g., end-diastolic or Fontan pressures) or pulmonary vascular resistance by echocardiography, CMR is indicated for use in surgical planning in routine cases (Class I, Level of evidence B) (See Table 2).
-
After Fontan, CMR is beneficial to follow asymptomatic patients routinely (Class I, Level of evidence B) every 2–3 years, especially when they reach the teenage years and is indicated in the symptomatic patient if there is no primary indication for an intervention or there is no indication of increased pressures (eg end-diastolic or Fontan pressures) or pulmonary vascular resistance by echocardiography
-
Prior to surgery or at any stage of surgical reconstruction, CMR can be useful to evaluate anatomy and ventricular function including volumes and mass and valve function (Class I, Level of evidence B). Tissue characterization such as late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) may be useful in prognostication (Class I, Level of Evidence B)
-
Prior to surgery or at any stage of surgical reconstruction, CMR can be useful to evaluate hemodynamics such as flows, cardiac index, Qp/Qs, flows to both lungs, fenestration flow (if Fontan) and systemic to pulmonary collateral flow (Class I, Level of evidence B).
Tetralogy of Fallot
Background
Indication and the role of CMR in TOF
-
Lack of visualization of various structures such as the branch PAs by echocardiography
-
aortic arch anomalies
-
discontinuous branch PAs
-
aorto-pulmonary collaterals (Fig. 3)
-
complex TOF or situs anomalies
-
inconsistent clinical data that may indicate the need for an intervention other than routine repair.
Summary of recommendations
-
Prior to definitive TOF surgery, CMR can be useful to delineate various anatomic structures when there is a lack of visualization by echocardiography. In addition, it can be beneficial to delineate, aortic arch anomalies, discontinuous branch PAs, aorto-pulmonary collaterals and complex TOF anatomy or situs anomalies as an adjunct to echocardiography (Class IIA, level of evidence C).
-
After definitive TOF repair, CMR is reasonable to delineate anatomy, physiology, blood flow, ventricular function and tissue characterization. In specific, assessing biventricular performance (ventricular volumes, ejection fraction, cardiac index), valve function (PR, TR, AR) and flows to both lungs are crucial to quantify (Class I, level of evidence B). RVOT, branch PA and aortic root/aortic anatomy are important to evaluate and measure (Class I, level of evidence B). Discrete myocardial scarring is important to identify (Class I, level of evidence B).
-
CMR is indicated to evaluate RV volumes as a baseline, every 2–3 years if not dilated and ≥ 10 years of age or yearly if dilated and in the range to be considered for PVR (Class I, level of evidence B).
-
Annual CMR is useful when surgery is being considered to evaluate RVOT aneurysms or obstruction, sustained tachyarrhythmias related to RV volume overload, left to right shunt with a Qp/Qs > 1.5, severe AR or dilation if being considered for PVR (Class IIA, level of evidence B).
-
If the child requires sedation or anesthesia for CMR, this modality is reasonable to delineate anatomy, physiology, blood flow, ventricular function and tissue characterization when echocardiography suggests pathology or cannot visualize structures (Class IIA, level of evidence B). This can be performed as a baseline in childhood and prior to reaching the teenage years (Class IIB, level of evidence C).
-
Myocardial strain (Class IIA, level of evidence B) and diffuse fibrosis (Class IIB, level of evidence C) by CMR might be considered for prognostication.
Transposition of the great arteries
Background
Indications for CMR
Prior to ASO
After ASO
Features depicted by CMR after the arterial switch operation (ASO) |
---|
Ventricular dilatation, ventricular dysfunction |
Right ventricular outflow tract and pulmonary artery branches after Lecompte manoever |
Neoaortic root dilatation |
Neoaortic valve regurgitation |
Myocardial perfusion defects due to coronary artery kinking or stenosis |
Myocardial viability |
Ventricular function
Characteristics | CMR | Transthoracic echocardiography | Cardiac computed tomography | Nuclear scintigraphy |
---|---|---|---|---|
Radiation exposure | − | − | +++ | ++++ |
Safety with pacemakers | + | ++++ | +++ | +++ |
Ventricular dysfunction | ++++ | ++ | ++ | − |
Myocardial ischemia | ++++ | + | − | ++++ |
Coronary artery anatomy | +++ | ++ | ++++ | - |
Coronary artery stenosis | +++ | − | ++++ | ++ |
Supravalvar aortic or pulmonary stenosis | ++++ | ++++ | ++++ | − |
Branch pulmonary artery stenosis | ++++ | ++ | ++++ | ( +) |
Neoaortic root dilation | ++++ | +++ | ++++ | − |
Neoaortic valve regurgitation | ++++ | ++ | − | − |
Coronary arteries, myocardial perfusion and viability
Pulmonary arteries
Neoaortic root dilation
Summary of recommendations
-
Prior to surgery, CMR is useful in evaluating anatomy and physiology required for medical or surgical management in patients with TGA which is not delineated by echocardiography (Class I, Level of evidence C).
-
A comprehensive CMR examination should be performed during routine follow-up of patients who received an ASO and is complimentary to echocardiography (Class I, Level of evidence B)
-
CMR is beneficial for quantification of biventricular volumes and function in TGA after the ASO (Class I, Level of evidence B).
-
CMR is beneficial for visualization of the coronary arteries in TGA after the ASO (Class I, Level of evidence B).
-
CMR is recommended for evaluation of the main PA and branch PA stenosis with assessment of differential pulmonary flow (Class I, Level of evidence B)
-
CMR is recommended for measure of neoaortic root enlargement and quantification of neoaortic valve regurgitation (Class I, Level of evidence B)
-
Vasodilator stress perfusion CMR imaging is useful in symptomatic patients to test for ischemia (Class I, Level of Evidence B) and may be considered as an initial, non-invasive screening test for myocardial perfusion defects and therefore detection of potential coronary artery obstruction. (Class IIB, Level of evidence B)
-
In the case of suspected myocardial perfusion defects, CMR may be considered for visualization of coronary ostial stenosis (Class IIB, Level of evidence B)
-
CMR is useful in screening for myocardial scarring with LGE (viability imaging) or in confirming the diagnosis in cases of symptomatic individuals, given manipulation of the coronary arteries in this lesion (Class I, level of evidence C).
Pulmonary venous anomalies
Background
CMR indication in PV anomalies
Summary of recommendations
-
In patients with PV stenosis or suspected anomalous PV connection, whether PAPVC or TAPVC, CMR should be performed for anatomic evaluation whenever echocardiography is insufficient (Class I, Level of evidence B).
-
CMR is useful to understand the hemodynamics of PV anomalies such as calculating any shunt (Qp/Qs) caused by anomalous PV connection and associated intracardiac lesions as an indication for surgical repair (Class I, Level of evidence B) as well as quantifying differential lung perfusion with flow redistribution (Class I, Level of evidence B).
-
CMR examination should be performed for assessing PV anatomy in cases with complex CHD when there is a clinical or imaging suspicion of anomalies of PV connection or drainage, particularly heterotaxy syndrome (Class I, Level of evidence B)
-
CMR angiography should be performed for surgical planning of repair of PV anomalies (Class I, Level of evidence B)
-
It is reasonable to perform at least one CMR examination during follow up after surgical repair for PV anomalies (Class IIA, Level of evidence B).
Coronary artery disease
Background
Indications for CMR to assess coronary arteries
Congenital
Acquired
Summary of recommendations
-
For patients with suspected AAOCA or other congenital anomalies of origin, course or exit, CMR is recommended to depict the origin and detailed anatomy of the vessels for both diagnosis and pre-operative planning (Class I, Level of evidence B).
-
For patients with Kawasaki disease or other acquired “diseased” based coronary pathology, CMR is recommended to accurately depict the size, shape, and location of coronary aneurysms (Class I, Level of evidence B).
-
For patients with acquired “surgically” based coronary pathology such as TGA after ASO or Ross procedure, CMR is recommended to evaluate the post-operative coronary anatomy as part of a clinically indicated comprehensive CMR examination. (Class I, Level of evidence B)
-
CMR should be utilized to assess the secondary effects of congenital coronary anomalies or acquired pathology such as effects on myocardial function (e.g., regional wall motion abnormalities, end-diastolic volume, ejection fraction), perfusion and infarction (Class I, Level of evidence B) both prior to and after repair (if surgery) or in followup.
Coarctation of the aorta and bicuspid aortic valve
Background
Indication for CMR
Summary of recommendations
-
At the initial diagnosis of coarctation by echocardiography, CMR is recommended to provide conclusive anatomical and functional details needed prior to treatment or to decide if treatment is needed including anatomy of the coarctation, LV hypertrophy, cardiac index and the presence of a BAV etc. if these are not fully delineated by echocardiography (Class I, level of evidence B).
-
CMR is reasonable to assess collateral flow in patients with coarctation of the aorta, especially if it is unclear from other criteria that treatment is needed (Class IIA, level of evidence B).
-
After surgical repair of coarctation, CMR is indicated to monitor the status of the aorta and to visualize restenosis or aneurysm formation (Class I, level of evidence B).
-
After stent placement, CMR can be useful to provide anatomic and hemodynamic assessment of the aorta surrounding the stent, but not to accurately visualize in-stent stenosis (Class IIA, level of evidence B).
-
After coarctation repair, CMR is recommended to assess the aorta and LV function every 1–3 years in children and adolescents, similar to adults, if echocardiography is insufficient or pathology is suspected (Class I, level of evidence B).
-
CMR holds the potential to assess LV myocardial strain and diffuse fibrosis/increased ECV in patients with coarctation to assess effects on the LV and may be considered for this purpose (Class IIB, level of evidence B).
Bicuspid aortic valve
Background
Indication for CMR in BAV
Summary of recommendations
-
If echocardiography is unable to visualize morphology of a BAV or visualize the aortic root or ascending aorta adequately, CMR is indicated to provide the needed information. (Class I, level of evidence B)
-
CMR should be used for serial monitoring in the setting of BAV valve with associated aortic stenosis or AR and to quantify these hemodynamics (Class I, level of evidence B).
-
CMR is useful for serial monitoring of the size of the aortic root and ascending aorta in the setting of BAV. (Class I, Level of Evidence B)
-
CMR is recommended for serial monitoring of the effects of aortic stenosis and AR on the LV (e.g. LV volumes, EF and mass) (Class I, Level of Evidence B) and to obtain direct measurement of AR volume, peak flow velocity and aortic valve area when determining need for aortic valve/aortic surgery (Class IIA, Level of Evidence B).
-
CMR is beneficial to determine lesions associated with BAV such as coarctation of the aorta, interrupted aortic arch other left sided obstructed lesions (Class I, Level of Evidence B).
Genetic aortopathy
Background
Disorder | Genetic defect/mutation | Histology | Aortic disease |
---|---|---|---|
Marfan syndrome | Fibrillin-1-encoding FBN-1 gene | Vascular smooth muscle cell loss and cystic medial necrosis | Aortic root dilatation and increased risk of aortic dissection |
Vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome | COL3A1 encoding Collagen III | Increased fragility of vessels | Increased risk of dissection and rupture often without dilation |
Loeys-Dietz syndrome | TGFBRI, TGFBRII, SMAD3 gene, TGFB2 gene, TGFB3 gene | Increased medial collagen, elastic fiber fragmentation and medial degeneration | Widespread arterial tortuosity, aneurysms and dissection (often without dilatation) |
Turner syndrome | 45 XO or mosaic 45 XO | Cystic medial necrosis possibly secondary to primary neural crest defect in 4th branchial/pharyngeal arch leading to cardiac, vascular and lymph anomalies | Aortic dilatation typically beginning at aortic root/ascending aorta, bicuspid aortic valve aortic coarctation |
Noonan syndrome | PTPN 11 mutation and other mutations in RAS-Mitogen activated protein kinase pathway | Signal changes in several intracellular transduction pathways leading to cardiofacial abnormalities, abnormalities in valvulogenesis and lymphedema | Aortic root dilation, ascending aorta dilatation, coronary artery aneurysms and pulmonary artery stenosis |
Osteoarthritis-Aneurysm syndrome | SMAD3 | Disorganization of the tunica media, fragmentation and loss of elastic fibers and accumulation of collagen | Aortic root dilation, aortic dissection and widespread aneurysms associated with early onset osteoarthritis |
Non syndromic familial thoracic aneurysms and dissections | ACTA2 MYH11 MYLK | Vascular smooth muscle cell protein abnormalities | Familial thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections |
Indications for CMR
Summary of recommendations
-
CMR is the recommended imaging modality for aortic size measurement and surveillance in pediatric patients with genetic aortopathy, as well as assessment of valve regurgitation and LV function. (Class I, Level of evidence B).
-
CMR should be utilized for complete arterial screening and surveillance in pediatric patients with genetic aortopathy (Class I, Level of evidence C).
-
Depending upon the risk of the mutation, serial CMRs should be performed every few years (Class I, Level of evidence C) and if stenosis, dilation or aneurysm are determined to be progressing, serial CMRs should be occur more frequently (as much as every 6 months) (Class I, Level of evidence C).
-
CMR is indicated for assessment of aortic dissection risk: In patients with Turner syndrome with additional risk factors, including BAV, coarctation of the aorta, and/or hypertension, and in patients who attempt to become pregnant or who become pregnant, it may be reasonable to perform imaging of the heart and aorta to help determine the risk of aortic dissection. (Class I, Level of evidence C).
-
CMR may be beneficial for VTI measurement for risk stratification in patients with genetic aortopathy risk: Limited populations examined have suggested that VTI > 50 is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. (Class I, Level of evidence B).
Vascular rings and slings
Background
Indication for CMR in vascular rings and slings
Vascular rings
Pulmonary artery slings
Considerations
Summary of recommendations
-
After preliminary assessment and clinical suspicion for a vascular ring or pulmonary sling, CMR is indicated for definitive anatomic diagnosis in the management of these lesions prior to therapeutic intervention. (Class I, level of evidence B) Flows to both lungs may be assessed in pulmonary sling.
-
CMR is indicated for the assessment of tracheal narrowing in patients with vascular rings and slings (Class I, level of evidence B)
-
CMR is indicated for the assessment of associated lesions of vascular rings such as TOF (Class I, level of evidence B)
TGA with a systemic RV (corrected TGA or TGA after atrial inversion)
Background
-
Congenitally corrected transposition (ccTGA), also called L-looped TGA or TGA {S,L,L}, occurs when the morphologic LV is on the right side of the circulation and associated with the pulmonary valve and the morphologic RV is on the left side of the circulation and associated with the aorta [350]. There is atrioventricular and ventriculoarterial discordance which results in normal hemodynamics where systemic venous returns is directed towards the lungs and pulmonary venous return is directed towards the body. These patients most commonly have no other CHD, but if CHD occurs, they most commonly have VSD, pulmonary stenosis or may have Ebstein’s anomaly of the left sided tricuspid valve.
-
TGA after atrial inversion, also called TGA after atrial switch, occurs when patients with D-looped TGA (i.e. {S,D,D}; the morphologic RV is on the right side of the circulation and associated with the aorta and the morphologic LV is on the left side of the circulation and associated with the pulmonary valve) undergo an atrial switch operation, either a Senning or a Mustard procedure. In D-looped TGA, there is atrioventricular concordance and ventriculoarterial discordance resulting in the systemic and pulmonary venous systems in parallel circuits; the Senning and Mustard procedures baffle venous return to the correct ventricle physiologically. Most of these operations were performed in the era prior to ASO so the vast majority of these patients are adults although in some circumstances, this is performed in the "double switch" operation for TGA {S,L,L}.
Indications for CMR
Summary of recommendations
-
CMR is indicated for quantification of systemic RV volumes, mass, and ejection fraction (Class I, level of evidence B) and can be useful for quantification of pulmonary LV performance parameters in patients with a dual chambered circulation (Class IIA, level of evidence C)
-
CMR is recommended for the assessment of the systemic atrioventricular valve (left sided tricuspid valve in TGA {S,L,L} or right sided tricuspid valve in TGA {S,D,D} after atrial inversion procedure) in patients with a systemic RV (Class I, level of evidence B)
-
CMR is useful for detecting systemic RV myocardial fibrosis, which may have important implications for a given patient’s prognosis and therapy options (Class I, level of evidence B)
-
CMR is beneficial for the detection of stenosis and leaks of the interatrial baffle in those patients with systemic RVs who have undergone an atrial inversion procedure (Class I, level of evidence B) as well as for detection of the presence and severity of outflow tract obstruction (Class I, level of evidence B).
-
CMR is useful to assess associated lesions and the sequelae of repair such as VSD, pulmonary stenosis and PR, especially in patients with ccTGA (Class I, level of evidence B).
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Background
Indications for CMR
-
LGE (Fig. 43): The precise pathophysiologic mechanism responsible for LGE in HCM remains uncertain but is likely a combination of gadolinium deposition in areas of myocardial fibrosis and between areas of myocardial disarray. It is most prevalent in areas of hypertrophy and has been associated with increased incidence of ventricular tachyarrythmias and heart failure [413, 414]. LGE usually is patchy and midmyocardial in distribution. LGE has been described in 46–73% of children and adolescents with phenotypic HCM, despite preserved systolic function; it has been shown to increase annually with serial CMR surveillance, constituting on average 10.4% of LV mass [415, 416]. Those children with LGE were found to have greater LV mass and were at risk for adverse events including ventricular tachycardia [417], aborted SCD [418] as well as having decreased ventricular strain (Fig. 43) [416, 419‐422]. A 4-center study of 1,293 adult patients followed for 3.3 years showed that LGE of ≥ 15% was associated with a twofold increase in SCD event risk [423]. Two subsequent meta-analyses that included that study and others confirmed that the incidence of SCD was increased in the presence of LGE, but differed in whether extent of LGE was important [424, 425].
-
Diffuse fibrosis (Fig. 44): Adult patients with HCM have abnormal T1 indices concordant with diffuse myocardial disease, even in the absence of LGE [426‐428]. Additionally, diffuse ventricular fibrosis by T1 mapping has been shown to be a predictor of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia and aborted SCD in adult HCM patients [429]. In pediatric HCM patients, studies have demonstrated increased native T1 and ECV in hypertrophied areas of myocardium compared with non-hypertrophied areas and higher in LGE positive segments [430, 431]. T1 mapping can also be used to distinguish HCM from other potential causes of hypertrophy including hypertensive cardiomyopathy and the athletes’ heart [432, 433]. Nevertheless, more studies are needed in this area.
Advantages of CMR over other modalities
Summary of recommendations
-
CMR is the recommended for confirmation of HCM diagnosis, evaluation of possible apical HCM or aneurysm and surveillance of LVWT in HCM [400, 409, 445] (Class I, Level of evidence A).This includes patients with LV hypertrophy in whom there is a suspicion of alternative diagnoses including the athlete’s heart. In children and adolescents with a diagnosis of HCM, contrast enhanced CMR surveillance should occur every 3–5 years for risk stratification, evaluation of LGE, wall thickness and ventricular performance (Class I, Level of evidence B).
-
CMR is the recommended to screen for HCM in patients with a family history of HCM when echocardiography is inconclusive (Class I, Level of evidence A)
-
CMR is beneficial to monitor ventricular function when a more accurate measure than echocardiography is needed, when there is a concern for ventricular performance by echocardiography, or in selected patients for risk stratification for ICD placement [393] (Class I, Level of evidence A). CMR is also useful to monitor LVOT obstruction in pediatric HCM patients when echocardiography is inconclusive (Class I, Level of evidence B)
-
CMR is reasonable for the evaluation of myocardial fibrosis for risk stratification in pediatric HCM, possible ICD placement and to monitor the patient more closely than those without LGE. (Class I, Level of evidence B)
-
CMR can be beneficial in pediatric patients with LV hypertrophy in whom alternative diagnoses in addition to HCM are suspected. (Class I, Level of evidence B)
-
CMR strain measurements may be considered in pediatric HCM patients to monitor ventricular function as well as for risk stratification; patients should be monitored more closely if strain is below the lower limits of normal [97] (Class IIb, Level of evidence B)
Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Background
Indications for CMR
Summary of recommendations
-
CMR should be used to evaluate biventricular size and systolic function of DMD and BMD patients after the age of 8 years (or when they do not need sedation) (Class I, Level of Evidence B) and may be performed every year if needed.
-
CMR myocardial fibrosis evaluation of DMD and BMD patients is recommended for prognostication and risk stratification (Class I, Level of Evidence B).
-
CMR strain analysis of DMD and BMD patients may be considered for prognostication and risk stratification (Class IIb, Level of Evidence B).
Cardiac tumors
Background
Indications for CMR
-
Precise definition of anatomic location of the tumor including size, sites of myocardial attachment, and tissue layers involved.
-
Tissue characterization and differentiation between benign and malignant tumors as well as to differentiate the mass with thrombus.
-
Differentiation between tumor and thrombus [483]
-
Determining the extent of the tumor and relationship with surrounding structures to determine impact on heat and valve function and guide surgical resection (eg outflow tract obstruction).
-
Imaging of fetal tumors
Summary of recommendations
-
CMR with gadolinium based contrast is indicated for the evaluation of cardiac masses for tumor type, characterization, accurate identification of location, size or hemodynamic effects of the mass or visualization of the mass for surgical planning (Class I, Level of Evidence B)
-
CMR is indicated to distinguish between a benign and malignant cardiac tumor. (Class I, Level of Evidence B)
-
CMR is indicated to distinguish cardiac tumor from thrombus. (Class I, Level of Evidence B)
-
Non-contrast CMR is reasonable in patients with compromised renal function (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2) for description of location, size, and any hemodynamic effect, but may be less useful for tissue characterization. (Class IIA, Level of Evidence C)
Myocarditis
Background
CMR indication
-
Confirming the presence of myocardial inflammation and edema
-
Differentiating ischemic (i.e. coronary) from non-ischemic causes of myocardial inflammation.
-
Risk stratification and prognostication
-
Guiding subsequent investigations
Confirming the presence of myocardial inflammation
-
T1-weighted images obtained before and early after administration of gadolinium-contrast revealing early gadolinium enhancement (EGE) [508], consistent with myocardial hyperemia or inflammation.
-
T1-weighted segmented inversion-recovery gradient-echo sequence [515] showing LGE, characteristic of myocardial necrosis or scarring.
Differentiating ischemic from non-ischemic causes of myocardial inflammation
-
In myocarditis, the pattern of LGE enhancement is characteristically subepicardal, may be transmural (but usually in a non-coronary distribution), and usually in a patchy distribution [530].
-
The LGE pattern from coronary artery disease (myocardial infarction), is subendocardial or transmural and in a distribution of coronary perfusion territory.
Risk stratification and prognostication
Guiding subsequent investigations
Summary of recommendations
-
The original Lake Louise Criteria (2009) is recommended for diagnosing myocardial inflammation for centers that have a good experience with these criteria in the pediatric age range (Class I, Level of Evidence B).
-
CMR with gadolinium-based contrast is indicated for evaluation of myocarditis to confirm the presence of myocardial inflammation in pediatric patients (Class I, Level of Evidence B).
-
CMR is beneficial in children and adolescents for differentiating ischemic from non-ischemic causes of myocardial inflammation, risk stratification/prognostication, and guiding subsequent investigations (Class I, Level of Evidence B).
-
CMR with multiparametric mapping can potentially add value in the evaluation of pediatric myocarditis, and more studies are needed in this population (Class IIa, Level of Evidence C).
Function and hemodynamics
Ventricular function
Background
Indications for CMR
Ventricular volumes and ejection fraction (Figs. 4 and 40)
Ventricular filling and diastolic dysfunction
Myocardial motion
Summary of recommendations
-
CMR should be performed for the evaluation of biventricular volumes, mass and ejection fraction in patients with volume or pressure overload lesions as well as with varying degrees of RV or LV hypoplasia (Class I, Level of Evidence B).
-
CMR is useful in assessing biventricular volumes and ejection fraction in patients with non-structural pediatric heart disease (e.g. DMD, myocarditis or pulmonary hypertension) or in those patients with congenital or surgically manipulated coronary artery lesions (Class I, Level of Evidence B).
-
CMR is indicated in assessing ventricular volumes and ejection fraction in patients with SV (Class I, Level of Evidence B).
-
CMR strain analysis may be considered in assessing ventricular function in CHD and prognostication of outcome (Class IIB, Level of Evidence B).
-
CMR tissue characterization is reasonable in assessing ventricular function in CHD and prognostication of outcome (Class IIA, Level of Evidence B)
Systemic to pulmonary blood flow ratio and collateral flow
Background
Indications for CMR
Summary of recommendations
-
CMR should be used for the evaluation of the magnitude and direction of intracardiac shunts in children and adults such as with ASDs and VSDs as examples (Class I, Level of Evidence B).
-
CMR is indicated for the evaluation of the magnitude and direction of extracardiac shunts in children and adults such as with patent ductus arteriosus and systemic-to-pulmonary collaterals as in Fontan patients (Class I, Level of Evidence B).
-
CMR is beneficial for the anatomic and quantitative flow assessment of systemic-to-pulmonary collaterals, aortic and venovenous collaterals (Class I, Level of Evidence B).
Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE)
Background
Indications for CMR
Cardiomyopathies
Summary of recommendations
-
CMR with LGE is recommended for evaluation of cardiac tumors or masses. (Class I, Level of evidence B)
-
CMR with LGE is indicated for assessment of suspected myocarditis (Class I, Level of evidence B)
-
CMR with LGE is reasonable for assessment of post-operative CHD (Class I, Level of evidence B)
-
CMR with LGE is indicated for assessment of pediatric HCM, dilated cardiomyopathy and neuromuscular disease patients (Class I, Level of evidence B)
-
CMR with LGE should be used for myocardial viability assessment in pediatric patients with decreased ventricular function, suspicion of a CHD, acquired, or iatrogenic coronary lesions (Class I, Level of evidence B).
-
CMR with LGE can be beneficial for assessment of chronic pericarditis when the diagnosis or therapeutic strategy is unclear (Class IIa, Level of evidence B)