Cardiology research and practice · 2026
Applicability of Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Devices: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zakavi Sarina, Khorgami Mohammad Rafie, Babaee Pedram, Babaeizadeh Alireza, Rahmati Rahem, Felfeli Mina, Meftah Elahe, Houshmand Golnaz, Abedpour Fatemeh, Fazelifar Amirfarjam, Pouraliakbar Hamidreza, Hekmat Hamidreza, Omidi Negar
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The utilization of stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is still limited.
METHODS: The study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with ID CRD42023457308. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, ProQuest, and CINAHL databases were searched using the Mesh and related terms of CMR imaging, stress, and CIEDs.
RESULTS: Out of the 1695 papers we found, eight met our inclusion criteria. We reviewed the included studies and provided a concluding remark concerning (a) image quality; (b) CMR compatibility, scanner, and safety; (c) device protocols and exclusion criteria; (d) vasodilator choices, effects, and safety; and (e) clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated a positive trend in the utilization of stress CMR in MR-conditional devices. However, the review has identified multiple research gaps that warrant further investigation.
METHODS: The study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with ID CRD42023457308. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, ProQuest, and CINAHL databases were searched using the Mesh and related terms of CMR imaging, stress, and CIEDs.
RESULTS: Out of the 1695 papers we found, eight met our inclusion criteria. We reviewed the included studies and provided a concluding remark concerning (a) image quality; (b) CMR compatibility, scanner, and safety; (c) device protocols and exclusion criteria; (d) vasodilator choices, effects, and safety; and (e) clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated a positive trend in the utilization of stress CMR in MR-conditional devices. However, the review has identified multiple research gaps that warrant further investigation.