Circulation · 2023
Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography to Guide Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Randomized, Open-Label, Noninferiority Trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАEquivalence TrialНазвание 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.
Reindl Martin, Lechner Ivan, Holzknecht Magdalena, Tiller Christina, Fink Priscilla, Oberhollenzer Fritz, von der Emde Sebastian, Pamminger Mathias, Troger Felix, Kremser Christian, Laßnig Elisabeth, Danninger Kathrin, Binder Ronald K, Ulmer Hanno, Brenner Christoph, Klug Gert, Bauer Axel, Metzler Bernhard, Mayr Agnes, Reinstadler Sebastian J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) is recommended for guiding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, a sizable proportion of TAVR candidates have chronic kidney disease, in whom the use of iodinated contrast media is a limitation. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is a promising alternative, but randomized data comparing the effectiveness of CMR-guided versus CT-guided TAVR are lacking.
METHODS: An investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial was conducted at 2 Austrian heart centers. Patients evaluated for TAVR according to the inclusion criteria (severe symptomatic aortic stenosis) and exclusion criteria (contraindication to CMR, CT, or TAVR, a life expectancy <1 year, or chronic kidney disease level 4 or 5) were randomized (1:1) to undergo CMR or CT guiding. The primary outcome was defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definition of implantation success at discharge, including absence of procedural mortality, correct positioning of a single prosthetic valve, and proper prosthetic valve performance. Noninferiority was assessed using a hybrid modified intention-to-treat/per-protocol approach on the basis of an absolute risk difference margin of 9%.
RESULTS: Between September 11, 2017, and December 16, 2022, 380 candidates for TAVR were randomized to CMR-guided (191 patients) or CT-guided (189 patients) TAVR planning. Of these, 138 patients (72.3%) in the CMR-guided group and 129 patients (68.3%) in the CT-guided group eventually underwent TAVR (modified intention-to-treat cohort). Of these 267, 19 patients had protocol deviations, resulting in a per-protocol cohort of 248 patients (121 CMR-guided, 127 CT-guided). In the modified intention-to-treat cohort, implantation success was achieved in 129 patients (93.5%) in the CMR group and in 117 patients (90.7%) in the CT group (between-group difference, 2.8% [90% CI, -2.7% to 8.2%]; P<0.01 for noninferiority). In the per-protocol cohort (n=248), the between-group difference was 2.0% (90% CI, -3.8% to 7.8%; P<0.01 for noninferiority).
CONCLUSIONS: CMR-guided TAVR was noninferior to CT-guided TAVR in terms of device implantation success. CMR can therefore be considered as an alternative for TAVR planning.
REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.
CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03831087.
METHODS: An investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial was conducted at 2 Austrian heart centers. Patients evaluated for TAVR according to the inclusion criteria (severe symptomatic aortic stenosis) and exclusion criteria (contraindication to CMR, CT, or TAVR, a life expectancy <1 year, or chronic kidney disease level 4 or 5) were randomized (1:1) to undergo CMR or CT guiding. The primary outcome was defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definition of implantation success at discharge, including absence of procedural mortality, correct positioning of a single prosthetic valve, and proper prosthetic valve performance. Noninferiority was assessed using a hybrid modified intention-to-treat/per-protocol approach on the basis of an absolute risk difference margin of 9%.
RESULTS: Between September 11, 2017, and December 16, 2022, 380 candidates for TAVR were randomized to CMR-guided (191 patients) or CT-guided (189 patients) TAVR planning. Of these, 138 patients (72.3%) in the CMR-guided group and 129 patients (68.3%) in the CT-guided group eventually underwent TAVR (modified intention-to-treat cohort). Of these 267, 19 patients had protocol deviations, resulting in a per-protocol cohort of 248 patients (121 CMR-guided, 127 CT-guided). In the modified intention-to-treat cohort, implantation success was achieved in 129 patients (93.5%) in the CMR group and in 117 patients (90.7%) in the CT group (between-group difference, 2.8% [90% CI, -2.7% to 8.2%]; P<0.01 for noninferiority). In the per-protocol cohort (n=248), the between-group difference was 2.0% (90% CI, -3.8% to 7.8%; P<0.01 for noninferiority).
CONCLUSIONS: CMR-guided TAVR was noninferior to CT-guided TAVR in terms of device implantation success. CMR can therefore be considered as an alternative for TAVR planning.
REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.
CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03831087.