Coronary CT angiography instead of invasive angiography before TAVI: Feasibility and outcomes

被引:0
|
作者
Jensen, Rebekka Vibjerg [1 ]
Jensen, Jesper Moller [1 ]
Iraqi, Nadia [1 ]
Grove, Erik Lerkevang [1 ,2 ]
Mathiassen, Ole Norling [1 ,3 ]
Pedersen, Kamilla Bech [1 ]
Parner, Erik [4 ]
Leipsic, Jonathon [5 ]
Terkelsen, Christian Juhl [1 ,2 ]
Norgaard, Bjarne Linde [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Aarhus Univ Hosp, Dept Cardiol, Palle Juul Jensens Blvd 82, DK-8200 Aarhus, Denmark
[2] Aarhus Univ, Dept Clin Med, Aarhus, Denmark
[3] Horsens Hosp, Dept Cardiol, Horsens, Denmark
[4] Aarhus Univ, Dept Publ Hlth, Sect Biostat, Aarhus, Denmark
[5] St Paulss Hosp, Dept Med Imaging, Vancouver, BC, Canada
关键词
Coronary artery disease; Aortic valve stenosis; Transcatheter aortic valve replacement; Coronary computed tomography angiography; Cardiac CT; Heart valve disease; AORTIC-VALVE IMPLANTATION; ASSOCIATION JOINT COMMITTEE; ARTERY-DISEASE; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE; AMERICAN-COLLEGE; SCCT GUIDELINES; TRANSCATHETER; REPLACEMENT; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132694
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] CABG patients: better coronary CT before invasive coronary angiography?
    Dahm, Johannes B.
    AKTUELLE KARDIOLOGIE, 2024, 13 (01)
  • [2] Comparison of coronary CT angiography and invasive coronary angiography results
    Tekinhatun, Muhammed
    Akbudak, Ibrahim
    Ozbek, Mehmet
    Turmak, Mehmet
    IRISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 193 (05) : 2239 - 2248
  • [3] Coronary CT Angiography after Invasive Angiography: Is It Worth It?
    Budoff, Matthew J.
    JOURNAL OF INVASIVE CARDIOLOGY, 2008, 20 (01): : 7 - 8
  • [4] Feasibility of Non-Invasive Coronary Artery Disease Screening with Coronary CT Angiography before Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
    Boyer, Jeremy
    Bartoli, Axel
    Deharo, Pierre
    Vaillier, Antoine
    Ferrara, Jerome
    Barral, Pierre-Antoine
    Jaussaud, Nicolas
    Morera, Pierre
    Porto, Alizee
    Collart, Frederic
    Jacquier, Alexis
    Cuisset, Thomas
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (06)
  • [5] Feasibility of coronary CT angiography for guidance of CABG
    Nykonenko, Andriy
    Feuchtner, Gudrun
    Nykonenko, Olexandr
    Chmul, Karina
    Makarenkov, Andrii
    Naumova, Darya
    Osaulenko, Vyacheslav
    Chevtchik, Orest
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2021, 15 (03) : 281 - 284
  • [6] Patient Preferences for Coronary CT Angiography with Stress Perfusion, SPECT, or Invasive Coronary Angiography
    Minhas, Anum
    Dewey, Marc
    Vavere, Andrea L.
    Tanami, Yutaka
    Ostovaneh, Mohammad R.
    Laule, Michael
    Rochitte, Carlos E.
    Niinuma, Hiroyuki
    Kofoed, Klaus F.
    Geleijns, Jacob
    Hoe, John
    Chen, Marcus Y.
    Kitagawa, Kakuya
    Nomura, Cesar
    Clouse, Melvin E.
    Rybicki, Frank J.
    Tan, Swee Yaw
    Paul, Narinder
    Matheson, Matthew
    Cox, Christopher
    Rief, Matthias
    Maier, Pia
    Feger, Sarah
    Plotkin, Michail
    Schoenenberger, Eva
    RADIOLOGY, 2019, 291 (02) : 339 - 347
  • [7] CT Coronary Angiography Versus Conventional Invasive Coronary Angiography - The View of the Referring Physician
    Maurer, M. H.
    Zimmermann, E.
    Hamm, B.
    Dewey, M.
    ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2014, 186 (12): : 1102 - 1110
  • [8] AUTOMATED STENOSIS QUANTIFICATION FROM CORONARY CT ANGIOGRAPHY: COMPARISON WITH INVASIVE CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY
    Stoebner, Richard A.
    Diaz-Zamudio, Mariana
    Cheng, Victor
    Thomson, Louise
    Hayes, Sean
    Friedman, John
    Slomka, Piotr
    Berman, Daniel
    Dey, Damini
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2014, 63 (12) : A1053 - A1053
  • [9] Diagnostic performance of coronary CT angiography with ultra-high-resolution CT: Comparison with invasive coronary angiography
    Takagi, Hidenobu
    Tanaka, Ryoichi
    Nagata, Kyohei
    Ninomiya, Ryo
    Arakita, Kazumasa
    Schuijf, Joanne D.
    Yoshioka, Kunihiro
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2018, 101 : 30 - 37
  • [10] Coronary competitive reverse flow: Imaging findings at CT angiography and correlation with invasive coronary angiography
    Li, Minghua
    Liu, Shuyong
    Zhang, Jiayin
    Lu, Zhigang
    Wei, Meng
    Chun, Eun-Ju
    Lu, Bin
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2015, 9 (03) : 202 - 208