Publications

• It is uncertain if the 2017 ASCO recommendations on postanthracycline surveillance echocardiography impacted practice. • Release of the ASCO guidelines was not associated with changes in echocardiogram frequency with under half of patients receiving an echocardiogram within 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) categories are based on left ventricular mass index (LVMi). This study aimed to generate and externally validate sex-stratified LVMi cutoffs according to incremental mortality risk.

METHODS: LVH information was determined on 155 668 men (aged 61.3±17.3 years) and 147 880 women (61.8±18.3 years) from the National Echocardiography Database of Australia. Sex-specific mild to severe thresholds of the increasing 5-year mortality rate based on LVMi increments were generated. These new thresholds were then validated in a US Medicare-linked echocardiographic database.

RESULTS: In the National Echocardiography Database, 36198 men (23.3%) and 38 898 women (26.3%) had LVH, with an actual 5-year mortality rate of 38.3% and 31.2%, respectively. The statistical threshold at which LVMi was associated with an increased mortality rate was lower than traditional criteria in both men (≥88 g/m2 versus ≥115 g/m2) and women (≥82 g/m2 versus ≥95 g/m2). In men, compared with the lowest-risk LVMi stratum, the fully adjusted risk of 5-year death was 14% (95% CI, 3%-25%) and 68% higher (95% CI, 49%-90%) when LVMi levels were mildly (88 to <116 g/m2) to severely (≥140 g/m2) increased, respectively. In women, the equivalent LVMi thresholds of 82 to <112 g/m2 and ≥140 g/m2 were associated with a 13% (95% CI, 3%-24%), and 81% higher (95% CI, 58%-208%) risk. The association of these LVMi thresholds and mortality risk was confirmed in the US validation cohort selected for the absence of 27 separate comorbidities (n=12 355; mean age, 65.9±13.1 years; 49.7% female).

CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of men and women have LVMi levels associated with an elevated mortality risk, despite absence of LVH. Such individuals may benefit from more proactive recognition and clinical management.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether geographic distance to a cardiovascular imaging center (CVIC) is associated with receipt of cardiovascular imaging (CVI).

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess temporal trends in distance to a CVIC and examine the relationship of distance to a CVIC and receipt of CVI overall and by modality.

METHODS: Among 64,260,530 older U.S. Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries from 2018 to 2021, the study measured individual distances to the nearest CVIC. Poisson regression was used to evaluate the likelihood of receipt of CVI as a function of distance, overall and by modality.

RESULTS: Of those beneficiaries included (age: 73.0 ± 8 years; 54.6% female; 80.1% White), 17.5% underwent CVI. The number of CVICs increased (0.02% per year), but median distances to CVICs remained stable (3.3-3.4 miles). Compared with beneficiaries living 10 to 16 miles from a CVIC, distance >16 miles from a CVIC was associated with lower likelihood of receipt (rate ratio: 0.957 [95% CI: 0.956-0.959]; P < 0.001). The lowest likelihood of receipt was within 10 miles of services (rate ratio: 0.923 [95% CI: 0.921-0.924]; P < 0.001). Distances to cardiac computed tomography (CCT), cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), and positron emission tomography (PET) services were longer than distances to echocardiography and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) services: (median distance: CCT: 8.1 miles [Q1-Q3: 3.7-21.3 miles]; CMR: 17.4 miles [Q1-Q3: 7.3-43.3 miles]; and PET: 88.9 miles [Q1-Q3: 26.2-194.6 miles] vs echocardiography: 3.4 miles [Q1-Q3: 0.4-7.0 miles]; and SPECT: 3.8 miles [Q1-Q3: 1.3-7.9 miles]).

CONCLUSIONS: From 2018 to 2021, the number of CVICs increased, although distances to CVICs remained stable. The lowest likelihood receipt of imaging overall was among those patients living within 10 miles of a CVIC, a finding suggesting that proximity is insufficient for access. CCT, CMR, and PET services were concentrated in large metropolitan academic centers.

Noninvasive cardiac imaging plays a critical role in the diagnosis and risk stratification of cardiovascular disease in older adults, a population marked by clinical heterogeneity, multimorbidity, and age-related physiologic changes. This review outlines the strengths and limitations of commonly used imaging modalities including echocardiography, transesophageal echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography, nuclear imaging tests, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the context of aging. We highlight diagnostic challenges such as limited exercise capacity, image quality artifacts, reduced specificity in the setting of multivessel, or microvascular disease and intolerance to longer scan protocols. Advances in imaging technology, including artificial intelligence and hybrid protocols, offer opportunities to improve accuracy, access, and individualized decision-making. The review emphasizes the importance of tailoring test selection to patient comorbidities and goals of care. Addressing current evidence gaps through trials inclusive of older adults and geriatric-focused imaging guidelines is essential to delivering equitable, high-value cardiovascular care to older adults.

The international Contract Ultrasound Society (ICUS) held a round table discussion on the safety of ultrasound contrast agents for cardiology, radiology, and pediatrics on September 4, 2024. The panel included international experts on ultrasound contrast. The panel reviewed the literature on the safety of ultrasound contrast agents and discussed their experiences. The panelists gave recommendations for maintaining safety in administering these agents.

Hypertensive heart disease (HHD) is a major contributor to cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. Once primarily seen in older adults, recent data suggest a rising burden among younger populations. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) mortality data for United States adults aged 15 to 44 from 1999 to 2024 were analyzed. Age-adjusted mortality rates were calculated overall and by demographic subgroup, including sex, race, ethnicity, age group, rural and urban residence, state, and Census region. The proportion of HHD mortality relative to other cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were examined. Joinpoint regression identified annual percent changes and inflection points. From 1999 to 2024, there were 119,264 HHD-related deaths among young adults. HHD mortality rose from 1.3 (95% CI, 1.23-1.36) to 6.3 (95% CI, 6.12-6.40), with the sharpest increase from 2018 to 2021. Males experienced greater HHD mortality over the study period (increasing from 1.76 to 9.13 deaths per 100,000 person-years) than females (0.76 to 3.31 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Differences were also noted by race and ethnicity, with Non-Hispanic Black individuals experiencing greater HHD mortality that Non-Hispanic White and Hispanic individuals. Age-related, and geographic differences were also observed. The proportionate HHD mortality increased from 3.8% in 1999 to 16.8% in 2024. Sustained increases in HHD mortality were observed after the COVID-19 pandemic relative to pre-pandemic levels. HHD-related mortality among young adults in the United States has risen significantly, with differences noted by sex, race and ethnicity, age, rural and urban residence, state, and Census region. The growing share of HHD deaths among CVD deaths in young adults signals its increasing role in premature CVD mortality. In conclusion, these trends underscore the urgent need for early prevention, equitable care, and targeted strategies to reduce HHD in young adults.

The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) plays a vital role in establishing practice standards and guidelines within the echocardiography field. Its influence is comprehensive, covering training, image acquisition, nomenclature, measurements, diagnosis, and quality improvement. This report focuses on the final phases of the diagnostic imaging process, specifically reporting and communicating exam results. It provides updates to previously published guidelines on the required components of a comprehensive echocardiography report. Standardization within echocardiography reports is essential to uphold quality, consistency, and interoperability across various echocardiography (echo) labs, institutions, and healthcare systems, as well as over different time points. Additionally, standardized reporting is crucial for facilitating big data analysis, aligning with the current emphasis on machine learning and artificial intelligence. This document delineates core measurements and statements applicable to transthoracic, transesophageal, and stress echocardiography. It also elucidates abbreviations, acronyms, terminology, and definitions to enhance communication. The path from preliminary report to final submission is clarified, alongside examples of critical, urgent, and significant findings. Recommendations include comparison of serial echocardiograms and, when clinically relevant, comparisons with other imaging modalities. The document addresses the integration of simple congenital heart disease (CHD) findings appropriate for an adult echo lab. Standardization facilitates clinical and research endeavors by ensuring clear and consistent data reporting, thereby enabling seamless data sharing and reusability.

The PRIME 2.0 checklist is an updated, domain-specific framework designed to standardize the development, evaluation, and reporting of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in cardiovascular imaging. This update specifically responds to rapid advances from traditional machine learning to deep learning, large language models, and multimodal generative AI. The updated checklist was developed through a modified Delphi process by an international panel of clinical and technical experts. In contrast to general AI reporting guidelines, it delivers detailed, practical recommendations on all critical aspects of AI research, and builds upon the original seven-domain framework by incorporating cardiovascular imaging-specific complexities such as cardiac motion, imaging artifacts, and inter-observer variability. By promoting transparency and rigor, PRIME 2.0 can serve as a vital resource for researchers, clinicians, peer reviewers, and journal editors working at the forefront of AI in cardiovascular imaging.