Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) Scanning vs Standard-of-Care: Comparative Analysis of Clinical Benefits From 6,545 Consecutive Studies
Authors' conclusion
In this nonrandomized comparison, AIA improved scan time, scan time consistency, image quality, and 90-day scan failure across top CMR indications, compared to ODS.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing CMR at a tertiary-care center, 2020 to 2024consecutive patients, 6,545 studies
- Participants
- 6,080 patients
- Comparison
- Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted vs conventional, operator-directed CMR scanning
- AI-assisted (AIA)n = 1,635
- ODSn = 4,910
- Outcome
- Scan time
Methodological detailstertiary-care center, consecutive patients
- Tertiary-care center
- Consecutive patients
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Reduction in average scan time
23%
P < 0.001
AIA vs ODS
Reduction in coefficient of variation of scan time
31%
AIA vs ODS
- Reduction consistent across indications and technologists' experience; significant after adjustment
- P < 0.0001
Further findings
Scan failure leading to repeat CMR · 90-day · lower in AIA
P < 0.001
| Outcome | AIA | ODS |
|---|---|---|
| Scan quality score (5-point scale) | ||
| Cine | 4.09 ± 0.8 | 4.03 ± 0.8 |
| Late gadolinium enhancement | 4.08 ± 0.8 | 3.98 ± 0.7 |
| Perfusion | 4.28 ± 0.6 | 4.14 ± 0.6 |
- Patient survival · median follow-up of 29 months · did not differ
- log-rank P = 0.500
- Scan quality score (5-point scale): P < 0.001 for each of cine, late gadolinium enhancement and perfusion; higher in AIA
AIA uptake · by 2023
- AIA use after introduction in 2021
- 78%
Original publication
Artificial Intelligence-Assisted CMR Scanning vs Standard-of-Care: Comparative Analysis of Clinical Benefits From 6,545 Consecutive Studies. JACC Adv. Published April 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →