Purpose To provide a comprehensive head-to-head comparison and temporal analysis of cardiac MRI indications between the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines to identify areas of consensus and divergence. Materials and Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines published until May 2023 were systematically screened for recommendations related to cardiac MRI. The class of recommendation (COR) and level of evidence (LOE) for cardiac MRI recommendations were compared between the two guidelines and between newer versus older versions of each guideline using χ2 or Fisher exact tests. Results ESC guidelines included 109 recommendations regarding cardiac MRI, and ACC/AHA guidelines included 90 recommendations. The proportion of COR I and LOE B was higher in ACC/AHA versus ESC guidelines (60% [54 of 90] vs 46.8% [51 of 109]; P = .06 and 53% [48 of 90] vs 35.8% [39 of 109], respectively; P = .01). The increase in the number of cardiac MRI recommendations over time was significantly higher in ESC guidelines (from 63 to 109 for ESC vs from 65 to 90 for ACC/AHA; P = .03). The main areas of consensus were found in heart failure and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, while the main divergences were in valvular heart disease, arrhythmias, and aortic disease. Conclusion ESC guidelines included more recommendations related to cardiac MRI use, whereas the ACC/AHA recommendations had higher COR and LOE. The number of cardiac MRI recommendations increased significantly over time in both guidelines, indicating the increasing role of cardiac MRI evaluation and management of cardiovascular disease. Keywords: Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, Guideline, European Society of Cardiology, ESC, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, ACC/AHA Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

Guidelines help clinicians to deliver high-quality care with therapies based on up-to-date evidence. There has been significant progress in the management of heart failure with regards to both medication and cardiac device therapy. These advances have been incorporated into national and international guidelines with varying degrees of success. This article reviews current guidance from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence in the UK and compares this with European Society of Cardiology guidelines, and evaluates how differences between them may impact on clinical practice.

暂无摘要。

Pericardial diseases are not uncommon in daily clinical practice. The spectrum of these syndromes includes acute and chronic pericarditis, pericardial effusion, constrictive pericarditis, congenital defects, and neoplasms. The extent of the high-quality evidence on pericardial diseases has expanded significantly since the first international guidelines on pericardial disease management were published by the European Society of Cardiology in 2004. The clinical practice guidelines provide a useful reference for physicians in selecting the best management strategy for an individual patient by summarizing the current state of knowledge in a particular field. The new clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases that have been published by the European Society of Cardiology in 2015 represent such a tool and focus on assisting the physicians in their daily clinical practice. The aim of this review is to outline and emphasize the most clinically relevant new aspects of the current guidelines as compared with its previous version published in 2004.