Comparative cost-effectiveness analyses of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and coronary angiography combined with fractional flow reserve for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease

Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging compared to common strategies in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has established exceptional diagnostic utility and prognostic value in coronary artery disease (CAD). An assessment of the current evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CMR in patients referred for the investigation of CAD is essential for developing an economic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CMR in CAD. We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science core collection, Embase, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), and health technology assessment, to identify relevant literature. After removing duplicates and screening the title/abstract, a total of 13 articles were deemed eligible for full-text assessment. We included studies that reported one or more of the following outcomes: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALYs), cost per life year gained, sensitivity and specificity rate as the primary outcome, and health utility measures or health-related quality of life as the secondary outcome. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERS 2022 guidelines. The findings of this study demonstrate that in patients undergoing urgent percutaneous coronary intervention, CMR over a one-year and lifetime horizon leads to higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to current strategies in cases of multivessel disease. The systematic review indicates that the CMR-based strategy is more cost-effective when compared to standard methods such as single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), and coronary angiography (CA) (CMR = $19,273, SPECT = $19,578, CCTA = $19,886, and immediate CA = $20,929). The results also suggest that the CMR strategy can serve as a cost-effective gatekeeping tool for patients at risk of obstructive CAD. A CMR-based strategy for managing patients with suspected CAD is more cost-effective compared to both invasive and non-invasive strategies, particularly in real-world patient populations with a low to intermediate prevalence of the disease.

Health Economic Analysis of CMR: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Uptake of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in Australia has been limited by issues of cost and access. There is a need to inform future application of CMR by evaluating pertinent health economic literature. We sought to perform a systematic review on the health economic data as it pertains to CMR.

METHODS

Eight databases (biomedical/health economic) were searched for relevant articles highlighting economic evaluations of CMR. Following screening, studies that reported health economic outcomes (e.g., dollars saved, quality adjusted life years [QALY] and cost effectiveness ratios) were included. Data on cost effectiveness, clinical/disease characteristics, type of modelling were extracted and summarised.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight (38) articles informed the systematic review. Health economic models used to determine cost effectiveness included both trial-based studies (n=14) and Markov modelling (n=24). Comparative strategies ranged from nuclear imaging, stress echocardiography and invasive angiography. The disease states examined included coronary artery disease (23/38), acute coronary syndrome (3/38), heart failure (5/38) and miscellaneous (7/38). The majority of studies (n=29/38) demonstrated CMR as a strategy which is either economically dominant, cost-effective or cost-saving.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review demonstrates that CMR is cost-effective depending on diagnostic strategy, population and disease state. The lack of standardised protocols for application of CMR, economic models used and outcomes reported limits the ability to meta-analyse the available health economic data.

The Merits, Limitations, and Future Directions of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Cardiac MRI with a Focus on Coronary Artery Disease: A Literature Review

Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging has a wide range of clinical applications with a high degree of accuracy for many myocardial pathologies. Recent literature has shown great utility of CMR in diagnosing many diseases, often changing the course of treatment. Despite this, it is often underutilized possibly due to perceived costs, limiting patient factors and comfort, and longer examination periods compared to other imaging modalities. In this regard, we conducted a literature review using keywords “Cost-Effectiveness” and “Cardiac MRI” and selected articles from the PubMed MEDLINE database that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria to examine the cost-effectiveness of CMR. Our search result yielded 17 articles included in our review. We found that CMR can be cost-effective in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in select patient populations with various cardiac pathologies. Specifically, the use of CMR in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with a pretest probability below a certain threshold may be more cost-effective compared to patients with a higher pretest probability, although its use can be limited based on geographic location, professional society guidelines, and differing reimbursement patterns. In addition, a stepwise combination of different imaging modalities, with conjunction of AHA/ACC guidelines can further enhance the cost-effectiveness of CMR.

Economic evaluation of fractional flow reserve-guided versus angiography-guided multivessel revascularisation in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients in the FLOWER-MI randomised trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who have multivessel disease, the FLOWER-MI trial found no significant clinical benefit to fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to angiography-guided PCI.

AIMS

Our aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of FFR-guided PCI, the secondary endpoint of the FLOWER-MI trial.

METHODS

Costs, major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction [MI], and unplanned hospitalisation leading to urgent revascularisation), and quality-adjusted life years were calculated in both groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were estimated. Uncertainty was explored by probabilistic bootstrapping. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the health care provider with a time horizon of one year.

RESULTS

At one year, the average cost per patient was 7,560€ (±2,218) in the FFR-guided group and 7,089€ (±1,991) in the angiography-guided group (p-value<0.01). The point estimates for the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios found that the angiography-guided strategy was cost saving and improved outcomes, with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirming dominance.

CONCLUSIONS

The FFR-guided strategy at one year is unlikely to be cost effective compared to the angiography-guided strategy on both clinical and quality of life outcomes.

Cost-Minimization Analysis for Cardiac Revascularization in 12 Health Care Systems Based on the EuroCMR/SPINS Registries

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the costs of a noninvasive cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-guided strategy versus 2 invasive strategies with and without fractional flow reserve (FFR).

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major contributor to the public health burden. Stress perfusion CMR has excellent accuracy to detect CAD. International guidelines recommend as a first step noninvasive testing of patients in stable condition with known or suspected CAD. However, nonadherence in routine clinical practice is high.

METHODS

In the EuroCMR (European Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance) registry (n = 3,647, 59 centers, 18 countries) and the U.S.-based SPINS (Stress-CMR Perfusion Imaging in the United States) registry (n = 2,349, 13 centers, 11 states), costs were calculated for 12 health care systems (8 in Europe, the United States, 2 in Latin America, and 1 in Asia). Costs included diagnostic examinations (CMR and x-ray coronary angiography [CXA] with and without FFR), revascularizations, and complications during 1-year follow-up. Seven subgroup analyses covered low- to high-risk cohorts. Patients with ischemia-positive CMR underwent CXA and revascularization at the treating physician's discretion (CMR+CXA strategy). In the hypothetical invasive CXA+FFR strategy, costs were calculated for initial CXA and FFR in vessels with ≥50% stenoses, assuming the same proportion of revascularizations and complications as with the CMR+CXA strategy and FFR-positive rates as given in the published research. In the CXA-only strategy, costs included CXA and revascularizations of ≥50% stenoses.

RESULTS

Consistent cost savings were observed for the CMR+CXA strategy compared with the CXA+FFR strategy in all 12 health care systems, ranging from 42% ± 20% and 52% ± 15% in low-risk EuroCMR and SPINS patients with atypical chest pain, respectively, to 31% ± 16% in high-risk SPINS patients with known CAD (P < 0.0001 vs 0 in all groups). Cost savings were even higher compared with CXA only, at 63% ± 11%, 73% ± 6%, and 52% ± 9%, respectively (P < 0.0001 vs 0 in all groups).

CONCLUSIONS

In 12 health care systems, a CMR+CXA strategy yielded consistent moderate to high cost savings compared with a hypothetical CXA+FFR strategy over the entire spectrum of risk. Cost savings were consistently high compared with CXA only for all risk groups.

Evidence-based cardiovascular magnetic resonance cost-effectiveness calculator for the detection of significant coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Although prior reports have evaluated the clinical and cost impacts of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for low-to-intermediate-risk patients with suspected significant coronary artery disease (CAD), the cost-effectiveness of CMR compared to relevant comparators remains poorly understood. We aimed to summarize the cost-effectiveness literature on CMR for CAD and create a cost-effectiveness calculator, useable worldwide, to approximate the cost-per-quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) of CMR and relevant comparators with context-specific patient-level and system-level inputs.

METHODS

We searched the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and PubMed for cost-per-QALY or cost-per-life-year-saved studies of CMR to detect significant CAD. We also developed a linear regression meta-model (CMR Cost-Effectiveness Calculator) based on a larger CMR cost-effectiveness simulation model that can approximate CMR lifetime discount cost, QALY, and cost effectiveness compared to relevant comparators [such as single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)] or invasive coronary angiography.

RESULTS

CMR was cost-effective for evaluation of significant CAD (either health-improving and cost saving or having a cost-per-QALY or cost-per-life-year result lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold) versus its relevant comparator in 10 out of 15 studies, with 3 studies reporting uncertain cost effectiveness, and 2 studies showing CCTA was optimal. Our cost-effectiveness calculator showed that CCTA was not cost-effective in the US compared to CMR when the most recent publications on imaging performance were included in the model.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current world-wide evidence in the literature, CMR usually represents a cost-effective option compared to relevant comparators to assess for significant CAD.

Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is a cost-effective, noninvasive test that accurately assesses myocardial ischemia, myocardial viability, and cardiac function without the need for ionizing radiation. There is a large body of literature, including randomized controlled trials, validating its diagnostic performance, risk stratification capabilities, and ability to guide appropriate use of coronary intervention. Specifically, stress CMR has shown higher diagnostic sensitivity than single-photon emission computed tomography imaging in detecting angiographically significant coronary artery disease. Stress CMR is particularly valuable for the evaluation of patients with moderate to high pretest probability of having stable ischemic heart disease and for patients known to have challenging imaging characteristics, including women, individuals with prior revascularization, and those with left ventricular dysfunction. This paper reviews the basics principles of stress CMR, the data supporting its clinical use, the added-value of myocardial blood flow quantification, and the assessment of myocardial function and viability routinely obtained during a stress CMR study.

Cardiac-CT and cardiac-MR cost-effectiveness: a literature review

Cardiovascular diseases are still among the first causes of death worldwide with a huge impact on healthcare systems. Within these conditions, the correct diagnosis of coronary artery disease with the most appropriate imaging-based evaluations is of utmost importance. The sustainability of the healthcare systems, considering the high economic burden of modern cardiac imaging equipments, makes cost-effective analysis an important tool, currently used for weighing different costs and health outcomes, when policy makers have to allocate funds and to prioritize interventions, getting the most out of their financial resources. This review aims at evaluating cost-effective analysis in the more recent literature, focused on the role of Calcium Score, coronary computed tomography angiography and cardiac magnetic resonance.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of stand-alone or combined non-invasive imaging tests for the diagnosis of stable coronary artery disease: results from the EVINCI study

AIM

This study aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of different non-invasive imaging-guided strategies for the diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in a European population of patients from the Evaluation of Integrated Cardiac Imaging in Ischemic Heart Disease (EVINCI) study.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 350 patients (209 males, mean age 59 ± 9 years) with symptoms of suspected stable CAD undergoing computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) and at least one cardiac imaging stress-test prior to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and in whom imaging exams were analysed at dedicated core laboratories. Stand-alone stress-tests or combined non-invasive strategies, when the first exam was uncertain, were compared. The diagnostic end-point was obstructive CAD defined as > 50% stenosis at quantitative ICA in the left main or at least one major coronary vessel. Effectiveness was defined as the percentage of correct diagnosis (cd) and costs were calculated using country-specific reimbursements. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were obtained using per-patient data and considering "no-imaging" as reference. The overall prevalence of obstructive CAD was 28%. Strategies combining CTCA followed by stress ECHO, SPECT, PET, or stress CMR followed by CTCA, were all cost-effective. ICERs values indicated cost saving from - 969€/cd for CMR-CTCA to - 1490€/cd for CTCA-PET, - 3092€/cd for CTCA-SPECT and - 3776€/cd for CTCA-ECHO. Similarly when considering early revascularization as effectiveness measure.

CONCLUSION

In patients with suspected stable CAD and low prevalence of disease, combined non-invasive strategies with CTCA and stress-imaging are cost-effective as gatekeepers to ICA and to select candidates for early revascularization.

Correlation of FFR-derived from CT and stress perfusion CMR with invasive FFR in intermediate-grade coronary artery stenosis

Only one-third of intermediate-grade coronary artery stenosis (i.e. 40-70% diameter narrowing) causes myocardial ischemia, requiring most often additional invasive work-up with invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). To evaluate the correlations between FFR estimates derived from computed tomography (FFR_CT) and adenosine perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) with invasive FFR in intermediate-grade stenosis. Thirty-seven patients (mean age 61 ± 9 years; 25 men) who underwent adenosine perfusion CMR, quantitative coronary angiography and FFR in the work-up for intermediate-grade stenoses (n = 39) diagnosed at coronary CT angiography were retrospectively evaluated. Blinded FFR_CT analysis was computed on each intermediate-grade lesion and correlated to the FFR values. On adenosine CMR, subendocardial time-enhancement maximal upslopes, normalized by respective left ventricle cavity upslopes, were obtained distal to a coronary stenosis (RISK area) and in remote myocardium (REMOTE area). The perfusion was subsequently assessed without (uncorrected RISK) and after correction for remote perfusion (relative myocardial perfusion index = REMOTE/RISK ratio), and then correlated to the FFR values. Differences in correlations were tested with z statistics and considered statistically significant different at a p < 0.05 level. The average FFR value was 0.85 ± 0.10 (0.60-0.98 range), 28% (n = 11) was ≤ 0.80. FFR value correlated poorly with uncorrected RISK upslopes (r = 0.151; p = 0.36), but equally strongly with FFR_CT (r = 0.675; p < 0.001) and the relative myocardial perfusion index (r = - 0.63) (p < 0.001; z = 6.72) for assessment of lesion-specific ischemia. Both FFR_CT and adenosine perfusion CMR strongly correlate with invasive FFR measurements for intermediate-grade stenosis. These preliminary findings pave the way for further studies evaluating non-invasively intermediate coronary stenosis in clinical practice.

CMR First-Pass Perfusion for Suspected Inducible Myocardial Ischemia

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has evolved from a pioneering research tool to an established noninvasive imaging method for detecting inducible myocardial perfusion deficits. In this consensus document, experts of different imaging techniques summarize the existing body of evidence regarding CMR perfusion as a viable complement to other established noninvasive tools for the assessment of perfusion and discuss the advantages and pitfalls of the technique. A rapid, standardized CMR perfusion protocol is described, which is safe, clinically feasible, and cost-effective for centers with contemporary magnetic resonance equipment. CMR perfusion can be recommended as a routine diagnostic tool to identify inducible myocardial ischemia.

The STRATEGY Study (Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Versus Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for the Management of Symptomatic Revascularized Patients): Resources and Outcomes Impact

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography coronary angiography (cTCA) and stress cardiac magnetic resonance (stress-CMR) are suitable tools for diagnosing obstructive coronary artery disease in symptomatic patients with previous history of revascularization. However, performance appraisal of noninvasive tests must take in account the consequent diagnostic testing, invasive procedures, clinical outcomes, radiation exposure, and cumulative costs rather than their diagnostic accuracy only. We aimed to compare an anatomic (cTCA) versus a functional (stress-CMR) strategy in symptomatic patients with previous myocardial revascularization procedures.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Six hundred patients with chest pain and previous revascularization included in a prospective observational registry and evaluated by clinically indicated cTCA (n=300, mean age 68.2±9.7 years, male 255) or stress-CMR (n=300, mean age 67.6±9.7 years, male 263) were enrolled and followed-up in terms of subsequent noninvasive tests, invasive coronary angiography, revascularization procedures, cumulative effective radiation dose, major adverse cardiac events, defined as a composite end point of nonfatal myocardial infarction and cardiac death, and medical costs. The mean follow-up for cTCA and stress-CMR groups was similar (773.6±345 versus 752.8±291 days; P=0.21). Compared with stress-CMR, cTCA was associated with a higher rate of subsequent noninvasive tests (28% versus 17%; P=0.0009), invasive coronary angiography (31% versus 20%; P=0.0009), and revascularization procedures (24% versus 16%; P=0.007). Stress-CMR strategy was associated with a significant reduction of radiation exposure and cumulative costs (59% and 24%, respectively; P<0.001). Finally, patients undergoing stress-CMR showed a lower rate of major adverse cardiac events (5% versus 10%; P<0.010) and cost-effectiveness ratio (119.98±250.92 versus 218.12±298.45 Euro/y; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with cTCA, stress-CMR is more cost-effective in symptomatic revascularized patients.

Assessment of stable coronary artery disease by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: Current and emerging techniques

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is established in clinical practice guidelines with a growing evidence base supporting its use to aid the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected or established CAD. CMR is a multi-parametric imaging modality that yields high spatial resolution images that can be acquired in any plane for the assessment of global and regional cardiac function, myocardial perfusion and viability, tissue characterisation and coronary artery anatomy, all within a single study protocol and without exposure to ionising radiation. Advances in technology and acquisition techniques continue to progress the utility of CMR across a wide spectrum of cardiovascular disease, and the publication of large scale clinical trials continues to strengthen the role of CMR in daily cardiology practice. This article aims to review current practice and explore the future directions of multi-parametric CMR imaging in the investigation of stable CAD.

Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2015

There were 116 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2015, which is a 14 % increase on the 102 articles published in 2014. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The 2015 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2016) rose to 5.75 from 4.72 for 2014 (as published in June 2015), which is the highest impact factor ever recorded for JCMR. The 2015 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2013 and 2014 were cited on average 5.75 times in 2015. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, the progress of the journal's impact over the last 5 years has been impressive. Our acceptance rate is <25 % and has been falling because the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors have felt that it is useful once per calendar year to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, so that areas of interest can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality papers to JCMR for publication.

Clinical Application of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Revascularization in stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) is indicated in patients on optimal medical therapy with angina and/or demonstrable ischemia and a significant stenosis in one or more epicardial coronary arteries. Angiography alone, however, cannot accurately determine the hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions, particularly those of intermediate stenosis severity. A lesion may appear significant on coronary angiogram but may not have functional significance. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of functionally insignificant coronary artery lesions may have serious consequences; therefore, judicious decision-making in the cardiac catheterization laboratory is indicated. For this reason, it is becoming increasingly important to show that a stenosis is capable to induce myocardial ischemia prior to intervention. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has emerged as a useful tool for this purpose. In this review, we will briefly discuss the principle of FFR, current evidence and rationale supporting its use, and comparison with other modalities.

Cost-minimization analysis of three decision strategies for cardiac revascularization: results of the "suspected CAD" cohort of the european cardiovascular magnetic resonance registry

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease (CAD) continues to be one of the top public health burden. Perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is generally accepted to detect CAD, while data on its cost effectiveness are scarce. Therefore, the goal of the study was to compare the costs of a CMR-guided strategy vs two invasive strategies in a large CMR registry.

METHODS

In 3'647 patients with suspected CAD of the EuroCMR-registry (59 centers/18 countries) costs were calculated for diagnostic examinations (CMR, X-ray coronary angiography (CXA) with/without FFR), revascularizations, and complications during a 1-year follow-up. Patients with ischemia-positive CMR underwent an invasive CXA and revascularization at the discretion of the treating physician (=CMR + CXA-strategy). In the hypothetical invasive arm, costs were calculated for an initial CXA and a FFR in vessels with ≥50% stenoses (=CXA + FFR-strategy) and the same proportion of revascularizations and complications were applied as in the CMR + CXA-strategy. In the CXA-only strategy, costs included those for CXA and for revascularizations of all ≥50% stenoses. To calculate the proportion of patients with ≥50% stenoses, the stenosis-FFR relationship from the literature was used. Costs of the three strategies were determined based on a third payer perspective in 4 healthcare systems.

RESULTS

Revascularizations were performed in 6.2%, 4.5%, and 12.9% of all patients, patients with atypical chest pain (n = 1'786), and typical angina (n = 582), respectively; whereas complications (=all-cause death and non-fatal infarction) occurred in 1.3%, 1.1%, and 1.5%, respectively. The CMR + CXA-strategy reduced costs by 14%, 34%, 27%, and 24% in the German, UK, Swiss, and US context, respectively, when compared to the CXA + FFR-strategy; and by 59%, 52%, 61% and 71%, respectively, versus the CXA-only strategy. In patients with typical angina, cost savings by CMR + CXA vs CXA + FFR were minimal in the German (2.3%), intermediate in the US and Swiss (11.6% and 12.8%, respectively), and remained substantial in the UK (18.9%) systems. Sensitivity analyses proved the robustness of results.

CONCLUSIONS

A CMR + CXA-strategy for patients with suspected CAD provides substantial cost reduction compared to a hypothetical CXA + FFR-strategy in patients with low to intermediate disease prevalence. However, in the subgroup of patients with typical angina, cost savings were only minimal to moderate.

Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2014

There were 102 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2014, which is a 6% decrease on the 109 articles published in 2013. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The 2013 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2014) fell to 4.72 from 5.11 for 2012 (as published in June 2013). The 2013 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2011 and 2012 were cited on average 4.72 times in 2013. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, the progress of the journal's impact over the last 5 years has been impressive. Our acceptance rate is <25% and has been falling because the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors have felt that it is useful once per calendar year to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, so that areas of interest can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality papers to JCMR for publication.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in ischemic heart disease

Ischemic heart disease is the major cause of death in developed countries. Recently, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has appeared as a powerful technique for diagnosis and prognosis of ischemia, as well as for postischemic therapy follow-up. The objective of this chapter is to provide an overview of the role of CMR in assessing ischemic myocardium. It reviews the most recent studies in this field and includes CMR parameters that are already well established in the clinical setting as well as promising or emerging parameters in clinical use.