Key result
CMR-guided TAVR was noninferior to CT-guided TAVR for device implantation success at discharge (P<0.01 for noninferiority).
Why the study?
CT is recommended to guide TAVR but requires iodinated contrast media that poses risks in chronic kidney disease, and randomized data comparing CMR-guided versus CT-guided TAVR are lacking.
Does CMR-guided TAVR result in noninferior implantation success compared to CT-guided TAVR in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis?
RCT
Open-label
1:1
Yes
Does CMR-guided TAVR result in noninferior implantation success compared to CT-guided TAVR in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis?
CMR-guided TAVR is noninferior to CT-guided TAVR for device implantation success, providing a viable imaging alternative for TAVR planning.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports CMR as alternative to CT for TAVR planning; extends noninvasive imaging options in severe aortic stenosis.
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: <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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reindl et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) guiding vs. Computed tomography (CT) guiding was evaluated on Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definition of implantation success at discharge (p=<0.01 for noninferiority). CMR-guided TAVR was noninferior to CT-guided TAVR for device implantation success at discharge (P<0.01 for noninferiority).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: