English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Methods Over 3 years, 48 patients were imaged via MRI/CMR (1.5T GE, Milwaukee, WI). Specifically: 8 AICD, 7 AICD/PM, 2 retained lead, 2 REVO and 29 dual chamber PM. Specific criteria were followed for all pts to objectively define whether final diagnosis provided additional information towards pt care. A checklist of 3 questions was answered following scan interpretation by both the technologist and performing MRI physician: 1) Did the diagnosis change? 2) Did the MRI provide additional information to the existing diagnosis? 3) Did patient management change? If ‘Yes’ was answered to any of the above questions, it was considered that the MRI scan was of value to patient diagnosis and/or therapy.

Imaging the PM/AICD patient; just because we can, should we?