Rebekka Vibjerg Jensen , Jesper Møller Jensen , Nadia Iraqi , Erik Lerkevang Grove , Ole Norling Mathiassen , Kamilla Bech Pedersen , Erik Parner , Jonathon Leipsic , Christian Juhl Terkelsen , Bjarne Linde Nørgaard
{"title":"冠状动脉 CT 血管造影取代 TAVI 前的侵入性血管造影:可行性和结果","authors":"Rebekka Vibjerg Jensen , Jesper Møller Jensen , Nadia Iraqi , Erik Lerkevang Grove , Ole Norling Mathiassen , Kamilla Bech Pedersen , Erik Parner , Jonathon Leipsic , Christian Juhl Terkelsen , Bjarne Linde Nørgaard","doi":"10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims</h3><div>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.</div><div>We aimed to determine feasibility and outcomes following a strategy of cardiac CT + coronary CT angiography (cCTA) rather than cardiac CT + ICA before TAVI.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and results</h3><div>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.</div><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13710,"journal":{"name":"International journal of cardiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coronary CT angiography instead of invasive angiography before TAVI: Feasibility and outcomes\",\"authors\":\"Rebekka Vibjerg Jensen , Jesper Møller Jensen , Nadia Iraqi , Erik Lerkevang Grove , Ole Norling Mathiassen , Kamilla Bech Pedersen , Erik Parner , Jonathon Leipsic , Christian Juhl Terkelsen , Bjarne Linde Nørgaard\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132694\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aims</h3><div>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.</div><div>We aimed to determine feasibility and outcomes following a strategy of cardiac CT + coronary CT angiography (cCTA) rather than cardiac CT + ICA before TAVI.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and results</h3><div>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.</div><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13710,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of cardiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167527324013160\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167527324013160","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Coronary CT angiography instead of invasive angiography before TAVI: Feasibility and outcomes
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.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Cardiology is devoted to cardiology in the broadest sense. Both basic research and clinical papers can be submitted. The journal serves the interest of both practicing clinicians and researchers.
In addition to original papers, we are launching a range of new manuscript types, including Consensus and Position Papers, Systematic Reviews, Meta-analyses, and Short communications. Case reports are no longer acceptable. Controversial techniques, issues on health policy and social medicine are discussed and serve as useful tools for encouraging debate.