International journal of cardiology · 2024
Coronary CT angiography instead of invasive angiography before TAVI: Feasibility and outcomes.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jensen Rebekka Vibjerg, Jensen Jesper Møller, Iraqi Nadia, Grove Erik Lerkevang, Mathiassen Ole Norling, Pedersen Kamilla Bech, Parner Erik, Leipsic Jonathon, Terkelsen Christian Juhl, Nørgaard Bjarne Linde
Аннотация
AIMS: Concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequent in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) candidates. Despite societal recommendations of performing invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for coronary assessment in the pre-TAVI diagnostic workup, the prognostic value of ICA and beneficial effect of revascularization in these patients remains unclear. We aimed to determine feasibility and outcomes following a strategy of cardiac CT + coronary CT angiography (cCTA) rather than cardiac CT + ICA before TAVI.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a single-center, observational cohort study including all patients, without previous coronary intervention, referred to TAVI between April 2020 and November 2021. CAD was assessed by cCTA, and only patients with proximal stenosis >70 %, or left main stenosis >50 %, or cCTA was non-evaluable regarding proximal segments were subsequently referred to ICA. 240 patients were included in the study. No adverse effects to pre-cCTA-scan nitroglycerin administration were observed. On cCTA, 92 % of the patients had atheroscerosis. 191 (80 %) patients had cCTA only performed, while 49 (20 %) patients underwent subsequent ICA. During a median (range) follow-up of 15 (6-25) months, no difference in procedural complication rates, mortality rates, or number of unplanned ICA was observed between patients evaluated with only cCTA vs cCTA+ICA.
CONCLUSIONS: Upfront cCTA instead of ICA for assessment of obstructive CAD in the diagnostic workup of patients with severe aortic stenosis referred to TAVI is feasible, safe, and with similar procedural and clinical outcomes. Randomized studies are warranted to further validate the safety of using CTA rather than ICA for coronary assessment in TAVI candidates.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a single-center, observational cohort study including all patients, without previous coronary intervention, referred to TAVI between April 2020 and November 2021. CAD was assessed by cCTA, and only patients with proximal stenosis >70 %, or left main stenosis >50 %, or cCTA was non-evaluable regarding proximal segments were subsequently referred to ICA. 240 patients were included in the study. No adverse effects to pre-cCTA-scan nitroglycerin administration were observed. On cCTA, 92 % of the patients had atheroscerosis. 191 (80 %) patients had cCTA only performed, while 49 (20 %) patients underwent subsequent ICA. During a median (range) follow-up of 15 (6-25) months, no difference in procedural complication rates, mortality rates, or number of unplanned ICA was observed between patients evaluated with only cCTA vs cCTA+ICA.
CONCLUSIONS: Upfront cCTA instead of ICA for assessment of obstructive CAD in the diagnostic workup of patients with severe aortic stenosis referred to TAVI is feasible, safe, and with similar procedural and clinical outcomes. Randomized studies are warranted to further validate the safety of using CTA rather than ICA for coronary assessment in TAVI candidates.