Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging has witnessed substantial progress with the advent of parametric mapping techniques, most notably T1 and T2 mapping. These advanced techniques provide valuable insights into a wide range of cardiac conditions, including ischemic heart disease, cardiomyopathies, inflammatory cardiomyopathies, heart valve disease, and athlete’s heart. Mapping could be the first sign of myocardial injury and oftentimes precedes symptoms, changes in ejection fraction, and irreversible myocardial remodeling. The ability of parametric mapping to offer a quantitative assessment of myocardial tissue properties addresses the limitations of conventional CMR methods, which often rely on qualitative or semiquantitative data. However, challenges persist, especially in terms of standardization and reference value establishment, hindering the wider clinical adoption of parametric mapping. Future developments should prioritize the standardization of techniques to enhance their clinical applicability, ultimately optimizing patient care pathways and outcomes. In this review, we endeavor to provide insights into the potential contributions of CMR mapping techniques in enhancing the diagnostic processes across a range of cardiac conditions.

Background: Noninvasive imaging methods, either anatomical or functional tests, serve as essential instruments for the appropriate management of patients with established or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) plus stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (S-CMR) strategy in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). Methods: Patients with suspected CCS showing intermediate coronary plaques (stenosis 30–70%) at CCTA underwent S-CMR. Patients with a positive S-CMR were referred to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) plus instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and myocardial revascularization if recommended. All patients received guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), including high-dose statins, regardless of myocardial revascularization. The primary endpoint was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. Results: According to the results of CCTA, 62 patients showing intermediate coronary plaques underwent S-CMR, which was positive for a myocardial perfusion deficit in n = 17 (27%) and negative in n = 45 (73%) patients. According to the results of ICA plus iFR, revascularization was performed in 13 patients. No differences in the primary endpoint between the positive and negative S-CMR groups were observed at 1 year (1 [5.9%] vs. 1 [2.2%], p = 0.485) and after a median of 33.4 months (2 [11.8%] vs. 3 [6.7%]; p = 0.605). Conclusions: Our study suggests that a CCTA plus S-CMR strategy is effective for the evaluation of patients with suspicion of CCS at low–intermediate risk, and it may help to refine the selection of patients with intermediate coronary plaques at CCTA needing coronary revascularization.

Background: Coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) is now indicated as a non-invasive tool for ruling out obstructive coronary artery disease (O-CAD) in patients who are candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) showing low-intermediate pre-test probability of O-CAD. In elderly and comorbid TAVI candidates, the safety and accuracy of cCTA as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for ruling out O-CAD remain to be established. Aim: To assess the feasibility, diagnostic accuracy, and clinical safety of cCTA for ruling out proximal O-CAD in elderly, comorbid, high-risk patients undergoing TAVI. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study including all consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI between January 2019 and December 2020. All patients underwent pre-TAVI cCTA. Patients with positive or non-diagnostic cCTA underwent ICA selectively (ICA group). In patients with no-O-CAD, ICA was omitted and proceeded directly to TAVI (no-ICA group). Accordingly, patients were divided into two groups: no-ICA and ICA group. Clinical follow-up was extended up to 5 years, with assessment of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, and unplanned revascularization. Results: Among 355 patients enrolled, 210 were included in the study. Among them, 140 (66.7%) had negative cCTA for O-CAD, and ICA was safely omitted in 132 patients (62.8%). cCTA was inconclusive in 43 patients (20.5%) and positive in 27 (12.9%). ICA confirmed O-CAD in 53 of 78 patients (67.9%) and PCI was performed in 35 of 53 (66.0%). The accuracy of cCTA for ruling in O-CAD was low (66.28%). During the follow-up period (1513 ± 508 days), the no-ICA group showed comparable outcomes to the ICA group in terms of periprocedural complications and long-term results—at both 1 and 5 years—for MACEs, heart failure hospitalizations, mortality and unplanned revascularization. Outcomes remain comparable between the two groups after performing matched-pair analyses. Conclusions: Our data show that cCTA may provide a reliable, safe, and effective alternative to ICA for ruling out obstructive CAD in elderly patients undergoing TAVI when image quality is diagnostic. A cCTA-based strategy allows deferral of ICA in most cases without compromising procedural safety or long-term clinical outcomes, enabling a personalized and tailored clinical pathway. Whether advanced CT techniques, such as CT-FFR and photon-counting CT, may help refine patient selection for invasive coronary assessment remains to be demonstrated.

Background/Objectives: Over the past two decades, MitraClip™ therapy has proven to be an effective and safe treatment for severe mitral regurgitation (MR), with more than 200,000 patients treated globally through continuous advancements in device design and implantation techniques. This retrospective, observational, single-center study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the latest generation of MitraClip compared to earlier models in the Real-World MitraClip Florence Registry. The primary efficacy endpoint was a comparison in terms of the rate of successful procedures, the time to device deployment and the duration of the hospital stay. The secondary safety endpoint regarded long-term all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure. Methods: Patients treated at our center from January 2016 to June 2022 were included. They were divided into two groups: those receiving early-generation devices (G1–G3) and those treated with the last-generation device (G4). All patients underwent a comprehensive preoperative echocardiographic assessment, with a re-evaluation before hospital discharge and after 12 months. A long-term follow-up focusing on all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure was conducted. Results: Of 131 patients, 81 received the last-generation device. The mean age was 79.4 years. Both groups exhibited a high burden of comorbidities (overall mean n = 2.85). Procedural success was high (97%) across groups, with a significantly better MR reduction (Grade ≤ 1) in the G4 group (47% vs. 70%, p = 0.009). The time to device deployment was significantly shorter with the G4 system (72 vs. 135 min, p < 0.001), and there was a trend towards shorter hospital stays (6.1 vs. 7.9 days, p = 0.08). Kaplan–Meier analysis demonstrated better 5-year survival rates for the last-generation device group (p = 0.019), with no significant difference in rehospitalization rates (p = 0.186). Conclusions: The MitraClip G4 system in the real world for the treatment of severe MR is safe and effective, achieving immediate and durable procedural success, accompanied by an improved NYHA functional class. Moreover, a better long-term survival rate was observed, along with a comparable high rate of recurrent HF hospitalization, reflecting a high comorbidity burden in this frail population.