{"title":"Barriers to cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging scan performance and reporting by cardiologists: a systematic literature review.","authors":"Tesfamariam Betemariam, Abeba Aleka, Ekram Ahmed, Tinsae Worku, Yonas Mebrahtu, Emmanuel Androulakis, Steffen E Petersen, Rocco Friebel","doi":"10.1093/ehjimp/qyaf010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging plays a pivotal role in diagnosing and managing cardiovascular diseases. Its use has shown sustained growth over the past years. However, there is considerable variability in the use and reporting of CMR scans worldwide. This review provides synthesis of evidence on the barriers and challenges to performing CMR scans by cardiologists and gain insights into the variations in CMR scan practices across different countries.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>We systematically reviewed the literature from 1 January 2003 up to 13 November 2023. We searched four databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus) and hand-searched the references in the included articles, complemented by expert feedback. Articles were double screened against pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We conducted risk of bias using the JBI critical appraisal tool, and we analysed information using a narrative synthesis of results. We identified 14 857 articles, with 13 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. The key barriers were the limited availability of CMR scanners, resulting in extended waiting times, the high service cost, and limited training opportunities and the lack of a structured curriculum. The main practice variations identified were geographical disparities in CMR use. Worldwide, the majority of CMR training programmes are situated in radiology departments.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Barriers to CMR use by cardiologists range from access to scanners and prohibitive costs to disparities in familiarity with CMR technology. Geographic variations and heterogeneity in training programmes underscore the influence of systemic factors such as healthcare infrastructure, reimbursement policies, and unstandardized training curricula.</p>","PeriodicalId":94317,"journal":{"name":"European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice","volume":"3 1","pages":"qyaf010"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11879352/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjimp/qyaf010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging plays a pivotal role in diagnosing and managing cardiovascular diseases. Its use has shown sustained growth over the past years. However, there is considerable variability in the use and reporting of CMR scans worldwide. This review provides synthesis of evidence on the barriers and challenges to performing CMR scans by cardiologists and gain insights into the variations in CMR scan practices across different countries.
Methods and results: We systematically reviewed the literature from 1 January 2003 up to 13 November 2023. We searched four databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus) and hand-searched the references in the included articles, complemented by expert feedback. Articles were double screened against pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We conducted risk of bias using the JBI critical appraisal tool, and we analysed information using a narrative synthesis of results. We identified 14 857 articles, with 13 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. The key barriers were the limited availability of CMR scanners, resulting in extended waiting times, the high service cost, and limited training opportunities and the lack of a structured curriculum. The main practice variations identified were geographical disparities in CMR use. Worldwide, the majority of CMR training programmes are situated in radiology departments.
Conclusion: Barriers to CMR use by cardiologists range from access to scanners and prohibitive costs to disparities in familiarity with CMR technology. Geographic variations and heterogeneity in training programmes underscore the influence of systemic factors such as healthcare infrastructure, reimbursement policies, and unstandardized training curricula.
目的:心血管磁共振(CMR)成像在心血管疾病的诊断和治疗中起着关键作用。它的使用在过去几年中显示出持续增长。然而,在全球范围内,CMR扫描的使用和报告存在相当大的差异。本综述综合了心脏病专家进行CMR扫描的障碍和挑战的证据,并深入了解了不同国家CMR扫描实践的差异。方法和结果:我们系统地回顾了2003年1月1日至2023年11月13日的文献。我们检索了四个数据库(Ovid Medline、Embase、Web of Science和Scopus),并手工检索了纳入文章中的参考文献,并辅以专家反馈。根据预先定义的纳入和排除标准对文章进行双重筛选。我们使用JBI关键评估工具进行偏倚风险评估,并使用结果的叙述性综合分析信息。我们确定了14 857篇文章,其中13篇符合纳入标准。主要障碍是CMR扫描仪的可用性有限,导致等待时间延长,服务成本高,培训机会有限,缺乏结构化课程。确定的主要实践差异是CMR使用的地理差异。在世界范围内,大多数CMR培训项目位于放射科。结论:心脏病专家使用CMR的障碍包括获得扫描仪和高昂的费用以及对CMR技术熟悉程度的差异。培训方案的地域差异和异质性突出了保健基础设施、报销政策和不标准化培训课程等系统性因素的影响。