Cardiac MR guided TAVR effective option to CT-guided TAVR
Though Computed tomography (CT) is recommended for guiding TAVR, it is associated with limitations. CMR is a promising alternative, and studies are required to compare the effectiveness of CMR- versus CT-guided TAVR ( transcatheter aortic valve replacement). In a latest study published in Circulation, Dr. Martin Reindl recommended Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) as an ALTERNATIVE to TAVR planning. In this study, the team reported CMR-guided TAVR as non-inferior to CT-guided TAVR pertaining to the device implantation success.
For guiding TAVR, CT is recommended, but since TAVR candidates have chronic kidney disease (CKD), using iodinated contrast media poses a limitation. CMR could be a promising alternative but requires data to clarify "How effective is CMR- versus CT-guided TAVR?" This background was further investigated in the present study. Researchers conducted a trial at two Austrian heart centres.
Based on inclusion (severe symptomatic aortic stenosis) and exclusion criteria (contraindication to CMR, CT, or TAVR, a life expectancy < 1 year, CKD 4 or 5), patients were evaluated for TAVR. These were randomized to a 1:1 ratio for CMR- or CT-guiding. The primary outcomes measured were, absence of procedural mortality, correct positioning of a single prosthetic valve and proper prosthetic valve performance.
These were defined based on the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definition of implantation success at discharge. Non-inferiority was assessed using a hybrid modified intention-to-treat (mITT)/per-protocol (PP) approach (absolute risk difference margin of 9%).
The key results of the study are:
- Three hundred eighty candidates for TAVR were randomized to CMR-guided and CT-guided TAVR planning, including 191 and 189 patients.
- 72.3 % and 68.3 % in the CMR and CR guided group underwent TAVR, respectively. This included 138 patients and 129 patients, respectively.
- 267, 19 patients had protocol deviations, resulting in a PP cohort of 248, including 121 and 127 patients in CMR-guided and CT-guided, respectively.
- In the mITT cohort, implantation success was achieved in 129 patients and 117 patients in the CMR and CT group, constituting 93.5% and 90.7%, respectively.
- The between-group difference recorded was 2.8%.
- The between-group difference was 2.0% for the PP cohort.
They concluded the study by saying, "In our study, we report non-inferiority of CMR-guided TAVR to CT-guided TAVR pertaining to device implantation success."
CMR could be an alternative for TAVR planning, they noted.
Further reading:
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.066498
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.