Key result
Pre-CCTA oral propranolol shows no benefit for achieving target heart rate before TAVI.
Why the study?
The role of oral propranolol for heart rate control in severe aortic stenosis patients undergoing pre-TAVI cardiac CT remains uncertain due to potential hemodynamic risks.
Does oral propranolol safely reduce heart rate to <65 bpm in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing pre-TAVI CCTA?
Observational (n=113)
No
Does oral propranolol safely reduce heart rate to <65 bpm in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing pre-TAVI CCTA?
Absolute Event Rate: 43.4% vs 43.3%
Oral propranolol is feasible and safe for heart rate reduction prior to pre-TAVI CCTA in patients with severe aortic stenosis, yielding significant heart rate reductions without major adverse events.
Oral propranolol safely reduced HR without major events in selected severe AS patients pre-TAVI CCTA; leaves open impact on target achievement or image quality in non-randomized data.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Heart rate (HR) control may improve high-quality cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) image quality in preprocedural planning for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Beta-blockers, though useful for HR reduction, pose hemodynamic risks in AS patients. Propranolol, a non-selective beta blocker, may offer a safe and effective solution, but its role in this context remains uncertain. The aim of this paper is to assess the feasibility and safety of oral propranolol for HR control in severe AS patients undergoing pre-TAVI CCTA. METHODS: This prospective, single-center study involved 113 severe AS patients scheduled for pre-TAVI CCTA. Oral propranolol was administered according to baseline HR and individualized clinical assessment: patients with HR 55-64 bpm were eligible for 5mg, while those with HR >65 bpm were eligible for 10mg. Propranolol was withheld in patients with lower baseline HR or clinical/hemodynamic features favoring avoidance of beta-blockade. The primary outcome was achieving HR <65 bpm at the time of CCTA. Secondary outcomes included HR reduction and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 113 patients, 73 received propranolol and 40 were withheld propranolol. At admission, patients receiving propranolol had higher HR, whereas those not receiving propranolol more frequently had atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, and previous beta blocker use. Propranolol group showed significant HR reduction from 76.3 ± 11 bpm to a median HR of 66 bpm (p < 0.001). No HR reduction was noted in the non-propranolol group. At CCTA, 43.4% of propranolol patients met the target HR versus 43.3% of the non-propranolol group. No major adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: In selected patients with severe AS undergoing pre-TAVI CCTA, oral propranolol was associated with significant within-group HR reduction and no major adverse events. However, target HR achievement was similar between groups, and this comparison is limited by non-randomized treatment allocation and baseline differences. These findings support the feasibility and preliminary safety of propranolol, while further studies are needed to establish its efficacy and impact on image quality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Costa et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Severe aortic stenosis scheduled for pre-TAVI CCTA (n=113). Oral propranolol vs. Propranolol withheld (no propranolol) was evaluated on Achieving HR <65 bpm at the time of CCTA. Oral propranolol administered before pre-TAVI CCTA achieved the target heart rate of <65 bpm in 43.4% of patients, which was similar to the 43.3% achieved in the non-propranolol group.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: