The Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Cardiac Toxicity From Cancer Therapeutics

  • Aaron Soufer
  • Lauren A. BaldassarreEmail author
Cardio-oncology (M Fradley, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Cardio-oncology


Purpose of review

The emerging complexity of cardiac toxicity caused by cancer therapies has created demand for more advanced non-invasive methods to better evaluate cardiac structure, function, and myocardial tissue characteristics. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging meets these needs without exposure to ionizing radiation, and with superior spatial resolution.

Recent findings

Special applications of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess for cancer therapy–induced cardiac toxicity include the detection of subclinical LV dysfunction through novel methods of measuring myocardial strain, detection of microcirculatory dysfunction, identification of LV and LA fibrosis, and more sensitive detection of inflammation caused by immune checkpoint inhibitors.


CMR plays a significant role in the non-invasive workup of cardiac toxicity from cancer therapies, with recent advancements in the field that have opened avenues for further research and development.


Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging Cancer therapeutics–related cardiac dysfunction Anthracyclines Late gadolinium enhancement Myocardial perfusion 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Alexander J, Dainiak N, Berger HJ, et al. Serial assessment of doxorubicin cardiotoxicity with quantitative radionuclide angiography. NEJM. 1979;300(6):278–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Varricchi G, Ameri P, Cadeddu C, Ghigo A, Madonna R, Marone G, et al. Antineoplastic drug-induced cardiotoxicity: a redox perspective. Front Physiol. 2018;9:167.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Russell RR, Alexander J, Jain D, Poornima IG, Srivastava AV, Storozynsky E, et al. The role and clinical effectiveness of multimodality imaging in the management of cardiac complications of cancer and cancer therapy. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:856–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Plana JC, Galderisi M, Barac A, Ewer MS, Ky B, Scherrer-Crosbie M, et al. Expert consensus for multimodality imaging evaluation of adult patients during and after cancer therapy: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014;27:911–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellenger NG, Burgess MI, Ray SG, et al. Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes in heart failure by echocardiography, radionuclide ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance; are they interchangeable? Eur Heart J. 2000;21(16):1387–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thavendiranathan P, Grant AD, Negishi T, et al. Reproducibility of echocardiographic techniques for sequential assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes: application to patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(1):77–84. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walker J, Bhullar N, Fallah-Rad N, Lytwyn M, Golian M, Fang T, et al. Role of three-dimensional echocardiography in breast cancer: comparison with two-dimensional echocardiography, multiple-gated acquisition scans, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3429–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Akhavan Malayeri A, Johnson WC, Macedo R, et al. Cardiac cine MRI: quantification of the relationship between fast gradient echo and steady-state free precession for determination of myocardial mass and volumes. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(1):60–6. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thiele H, Paetsch I, Schnackenburg B, et al. Improved accuracy of quantitative assessment of left ventricular volume and ejection fraction by geometric models with steady-state free precession. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2002;4(3):327–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ewer MS, Ali MK, Mackay B, et al. A comparison of cardiac biopsy grades and ejection fraction estimations in patients receiving Adriamycin. J Clin Oncol. 1984;2(2):112–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thavendiranathan P, Poulin F, Lim KD, Plana JC, Woo A, Marwick TH. Use of myocardial strain imaging by echocardiography for the early detection of cardiotoxicity in patients during and after cancer chemotherapy: a systematic review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2751–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aletras AH, Ding S, Balaban RS, Wen H, et al. DENSE: Displacement encoding with stimulated echoes in cardiac functional MRI. J Magn Reson. 1999;137:247–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kwan JM, Arbune A, Henry M, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging feature tracking strain as a sensitive marker of cardiotoxicity in breast cancer patients compared with left ventricular ejection fraction. American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions, New Orleans, LA. 2019. Accepted abstract.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jolly MP, Jordan JH, Melendez GC, McNeal GR, D’Agostino RB Jr, Hundley WG. Automated assessments of circumferential strain from cine CMR correlate with LVEF declines in cancer patients early after receipt of cardio-toxic chemotherapy. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017;19:59.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giusca S, Korosoglou G, Zieschang V, et al. Reproducibility study on myocardial strain assessment using fast-SENC cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barthur A, Brezden-Masley C, Connelly K, et al. Longitudinal assessment of right ventricular structure and function by cardiovascular magnetic resonance in breast cancer patients treated with trastuzumab: a prospective observational study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017;19:44. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ylänen K, Poutanen T, Savikurki-Heikkilä P, Rinta-Kiikka I, Eerola A, Vettenranta K. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the late effects of anthracyclines among long-term survivors of childhood cancer. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1539–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Franklin B, Fernandes V. Cardiac MRI for the assessment of early chemotherapeutic cardiac injury and toxicity. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015;17(Suppl 1):P370.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Soufer A, Peters DC, Henry ML, et al. Advanced imaging of the left atrium with cardiac magnetic resonance: a review of current and emerging methods and clinical applications. Curr Radiol Rep. 2018;6:44
  20. 20.
    Wandelet LK, Kowallick JT, Schuster A, Wachter R, Stumpfig T, et al. Quantification of left atrial volume and phasic function using cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging-comparison of biplane area-length method and Simpson’s method. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;33(11):1761–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    De Ville de Goyet M, Brichard B, Robert A, Renard L, Veyckemans F, et al. Prospective cardiac MRI for the analysis of biventricular function in children undergoing cancer treatments. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015;62(5):867–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Evin M, Cluzel P, Lamy J, Rosenbaum D, Kusima S, et al. Assessment of left atrial function by MRI myocardial feature tracking. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42(2):379–89. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hu C, Boutagy N, Feher A, et al. Multi-parametric mri evaluation of doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity in a canine model. Society Cardiac Mag Resonance Scientific Sessions, 2019, abstract.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neilan TG, Coelho-Filho OR, Shah RV, Feng JH, Pena-Herrera D, Mandry D, et al. Myocardial extracellular volume by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(5):717–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bountioukos M, Doorduijn JK, Roelandt JR, Vourvouri EC, Bax JJ, Schinkel AF, et al. Repetitive dobutamine stress echocardiography for the prediction of anthracycline cardiotoxicity. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2003;4(4):300–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lehenbauer K, Kalisz K, Freed BH, Bi X, Guetter C, Jolly MP, et al. Quantitative cardiac MR assessment of left ventricular diastology. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15(S1):27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Westenberg JJM. CMR for assessment of diastolic dysfunction. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep. 2011;4:149–58.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seeman F, Baldassarre LA, Llanos-Chea F, et al. Assessment of diastolic function and atrial remodeling by MRI – validation and correlation with echocardiography and filling pressure. Phys Rep. 2018;6(17):e13828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fallah-Rad N, Walker JR, Wassef A, et al. The utility of cardiac biomarkers, tissue velocity and strain imaging, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in predicting early left ventricular dysfunction in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor II–positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant trastuzumab therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:2263–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Neilan TG, Coelho-Filho OR, Pena-Herrera D, et al. Left ventricular mass in patients with a cardiomyopathy after treatment with anthracyclines. Am J Cardiol. 2012;110:1679–86.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Drafts BC, Twomley KM, D’Agostino R Jr, Lawrence J, Avis N, Ellis LR, et al. Low to moderate dose anthracycline-based chemotherapy is associated with early noninvasive imaging evidence of subclinical cardiovascular disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:877–85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.•
    Muehlberg F, Funk S, Zange L, et al. Native myocardial T1 time can predict development of subsequent anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy. ESC Heart Fail. 2018;5(4):620–9 This recent study shows that early decrease in left ventricular native T1 times may predict future decline in LV function after exposure to anthracyclines.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jordan J, Vasu S, Morgan TM, et al. Anthracycline-associated T1 mapping characteristics are elevated independent of the presence of cardiovascular comorbidities in cancer survivors. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(8):e004325.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Melendez GC, Jordan RB, D’Agostino RB Jr, et al. Progressive 3 month increase in LV myocardial ECV after anthracycline-based chemotherapy. J Am Coll Cardiol Imag. 2017;10:708–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.•
    Ferreira de Souza T, Quinaglia ACST, Osorio Costa F, et al. Anthracycline therapy is associated with cardiomyocyte atrophy and preclinical manifestations of heart disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11(8):1045–55 This article suggests that elevated ECV may be related to cardiomyocyte atrophy, the degree of which appeared to correlate with myocardial injury as measured by troponin T values.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gallan-Arriola C, Lobo M, Vílchez-Tschischke JP, et al. Serial magnetic resonance imaging to identify early stages of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(7):779–91. Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chubb H, Aziz S, Karim R, Sohns C, Razeghi O, et al. Optimization of late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging of post-ablation atrial scar: a cross-over study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018;20:30. Scholar
  38. 38.
    Harrison A, Damal K, Burgon NS, Haslam MM, Glenn M, et al. Left atrial late gadolinium enhancement following external beam radiation for lymphoma: a potential model for exploring radiation-related heart disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;187.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Huang YJ, Sarkar V, Rassiah SP, Zhao H, Szegedi M, et al. Detection of late radiation damage on left atrial fibrosis using cardiac late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance imaging. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2016;1(2):106–14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    King JB, Azadani PN, Suksaranjit P, Bress AP, Witt DM, et al. Left atrial fibrosis and risk of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(11):1311–21. Scholar
  41. 41.
    Quail M, Grunseich K, Baldassarre LA, et al. Prognostic and functional implications of left atrial late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2019;21(1):2.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hu C, Sinusas AJ, Huber S, Thorn S, Stacy MR, et al. T1-refBlochi: high resolution 3D post-contrast T1 myocardial mapping based on a single 3D late gadolinium enhancement volume, Bloch equations, and a reference T1. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017;19:63. Scholar
  43. 43.
    Leong DP, Carcon F, Hillis C, et al. The risk of atrial fibrillation with ibrutinib use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Blood. 2016;128:138–40 Scholar
  44. 44.
    Friedrich MG, Sechtem U, Schulz-Menger J, Holmvang G, Alakija P, Cooper LT, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in myocarditis: a JACC white paper. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(17):1475–87.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.•
    Ferreira VM, Schulz-Menger J, Holmvang G, Kramer CM, Carbone I, Sechtem U, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in non-ischemic myocardial inflammation: expert recommendations. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(24):3158–76 This article provides updates to the Lake Louise Criteria to diagnose myocarditis with CMR and includes recommendations to implement native T2 mapping in the evaluation of myocarditis.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Darby SC, Ewertz M, McGale P, et al. Risk of ischemic heart disease in women after radiotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:987–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Marks LB, Yu X, Prosnitz RG, et al. The incidence and functional consequences of RT-associated cardiac perfusion defects. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63(1):214–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Agrawal S, Mehta PK, Bairey Merz CN. Cardiac syndrome X-update 2014. Cardiol Clin. 2014;32(3):463–78.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lee BK, Lim HS, Fearon WF, et al. Invasive evaluation of patients with angina in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2015;131(12):1054–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gould KL, Johnson NP, Bateman TM, Beanlands RS, Bengel FM, Bober R, et al. Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease. Role of coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and positron emission tomography imaging in revascularization decision-making. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1639–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hamirani YS, Kramer CM. Cardiac MRI assessment of myocardial perfusion. Futur Cardiol. 2014;10(3):349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Greenwood JP, Meredia N, Younger JF, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9814):453–60. Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lipinski MJ, McVey CM, Berger JS, et al. Prognostic value of stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(9):826–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N, et al. MR-IMPACT II: magnetic resonance imaging for myocardial perfusion assessment in coronary artery disease trial: perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs. single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicentre, multivendor trial. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(10):775–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pack NA, DiBella EV. Comparison of myocardial perfusion estimates from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with four quantitative analysis methods. Magn Reson Med. 2010;64(1):125–37.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Morton G, Chiribiri A, Ishida M, et al. Quantification of absolute myocardial perfusion in patients with coronary artery disease: comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(16):1546–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kotecha T, Martinez-Naharro A, Boldrini M, et al. Automated pixel-wise quantitative myocardial perfusion mapping by CMR to detect obstructive coronary artery disease and coronary microvascular dysfunction: validation against invasive coronary physiology. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019.
  58. 58.•
    Liu A, Wijesurendra RS, Liu JM, et al. Gadolinium free Cardiac MR Stress T1-Mapping to Distinguish Epicardial from Microvascular Coronary Artery Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(9):957–68 This group provides a stress CMR protocol without the use of GBCA, by using quantitative T1 mapping pre- and post-adenosine to quantify changes in MBF. This may be useful in the characterization of microcirculatory dysfunction in patients exposed to potentially cardiotoxic cancer therapies.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ramasawmy R, Rogers T, Alcantar MA, et al. Blood volume measurement using cardiovascular magnetic resonance and ferumoxytol: preclinical validation. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018;20:62.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Indorkar R, Kwong RY, Romano S, et al. Global coronary flow reserve measured during stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular events. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018.
  61. 61.
    Nguyen V, Baldassarre L. Stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance for evaluation of antineoplastic associated cardiotoxicity in a real-world cohort of breast cancer patients. Society of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Scientific Sessions, 2018, abstract.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Park C, Tjomas AL, Hundley WG, et al. Adenosine stress response with native T1 mapping is associated with contrasted first pass perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in cancer survivors treated with anthracyclines: measuring coronary microvascular dysfunction in cardio-oncology without contrast. ACC 2019 Scientific Sessions. 2019;73(9 Supplement 1). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Boutouyrie P, Tropeano AI, Asmar R, Gautier I, Benetos A, Lacolley P, et al. Aortic stiffness is an independent predictor of primary coronary events in hypertensive patients: a longitudinal study. Hypertension. 2002;39:10–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Chaosuwannakit N, D’Agostino R, Hamilton C, et al. Aortic stiffness increases upon receipt of anthracycline chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(1):166–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Grover S, Lou PW, Bradbrook C, et al. Early and late changes in markers of aortic stiffness with breast cancer therapy. Intern Med J. 2015;45(2):140–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Desai MY, Jellis CL, Kotecha R, et al. Radiation-associated cardiac disease: a practical approach to diagnosis and management. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11(8):1132–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Bogaert J, Francone M. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in pericardial diseases. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2009;11:14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kojima S, Yamada N, Goto Y. Diagnosis of constrictive pericarditis by tagged cine magnetic resonance imaging. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:373–4. Scholar
  69. 69.
    Taylor AM, Dymarkowski S, Verbeken E, Bogaert J. Detection of pericardial inflammation with late-enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:569–74. Scholar
  70. 70.
    Seemann I, Gabriels K, Visser NL, et al. Irradiation induced modest changes in murine cardiac function despite progressive structural damage to the myocardium and microvasculature. Radiother Oncol. 2012;103(2):143–50. Scholar
  71. 71.
    Jain V, Bahia J, Mohebtash M, Barac A. Cardiovascular complications associated with novel cancer immunotherapies. Curr Treat Options Cardio Med. 2017;19(5):36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Mahoney KM, Rennert PD, Freeman GJ. Combination cancer immunotherapy and new immunomodulatory targets. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015;14(8):561–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Johnson DB, Balko JM, Compton ML, Chalkias S, Gorham J, Xu Y, et al. Fulminant myocarditis with combination immune checkpoint blockade. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(18):1749–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Mahmood SS, Fradley MG, Cohen JV, et al. Myocarditis in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(16):1755–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Röttgen R, Christiani R, Freyhardt P, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in acute myocarditis and correlation with immunohistological parameters. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(6):1259–66. Scholar
  76. 76.
    Soufer, A, Higgins A, Baldassarre, L. Quantitative analysis of T2 imaging may identify global edema in patients referred for immune checkpoint inhibitor cardiomyopathy. 2019 Society of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Scientific Sessions, abstract.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Gallegos C, Rottmann D, Nguyen VQ, Baldassarre LA, et al. Myocarditis with checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy: case report of late gadolinium enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance with pathology correlate. Eur Heart J Case Rep. yty149,
  78. 78.
    Higgins A, Soufer A, Nguyen V, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging aids in diagnosis of suspected immune checkpoint inhibitor mediated cardiotoxicity. Global conference of Cardio Oncology Scientific Sessions, 2018, abstract.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Shehata ML, Lossnitzer D, Skrok J, et al. Myocardial delayed enhancement in pulmonary hypertension: pulmonary hemodynamics, right ventricular function, and remodeling. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(1):87–94. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cardiovascular MedicineYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations