Optimization of Preprocedural Full-cycle Computed Tomography in Patients Referred for Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Repair: Test Bolus Versus Bolus Tracking.
Journal
Journal of thoracic imaging
ISSN: 1536-0237
Titre abrégé: J Thorac Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8606160
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 May 2023
01 May 2023
Historique:
medline:
1
5
2023
pubmed:
15
11
2022
entrez:
14
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Advancements in transcatheter mitral and tricuspid valve repair have resulted in growing demands in preprocedural computed tomography (CT) imaging. Due to the introduction of multidetector CT (MDCT), shorter acquisition times as well as high rates of heart failure and arrhythmias in this specific patient population, optimal synchronization between the passage of contrast agent and data acquisition is mandatory. There is no consensus on which acquisition technique should be used in this patient population. We aimed to optimize our preprocedural CT protocol comparing bolus tracking (BT) and test bolus (TB) techniques. We performed a retrospective analysis on 151 patients referred for full-cycle MDCT evaluation for transcatheter tricuspid valve repair comparing BT with TB (BT n=75 TB n=75). Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were obtained. Demographic data, laboratory, electrocardiographic, and transthoracic echocardiography/transoesophageal echocardiography parameters were collected from electronic health records. Also, the volume of contrast agent and saline chaser and radiation dose length product and milliampere seconds were collected. BT and TB resulted in comparable CNR (BT: 0.47 [0.34 to 0.98]; TB: 0.51 [0.41 to 1.40]; P =0.1). BT was associated with a shorter scan duration (BT: 8.3 min [4.1 to 24.4]; TB: 13.9 min [6.2 to 41.4]; P <0.001), less radiation in terms of dose length product (BT: 1186±585; TB: 1383±679, P =0.04), and lower total volume administration (BT: 101 mL [63 to 16]; TB: 114 mL [71 to 154]; P <0.001). In patients with severely impaired ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤35%; n=65 [TB n=31; BT n=34]) using the TB technique yielded significantly better image quality in terms of CNR (TB=0.57 [0.41 to 1.07); BT=0.41 [0.34 to 0.65]; P =0.02). In patients with impaired LVEF (LVEF≤35%), the TB technique yielded significantly superior image quality and may be the preferred approach in this specific patient population. BT showed advantages in terms of shorter duration, less radiation, and lower contrast agent volume.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36374199
doi: 10.1097/RTI.0000000000000682
pii: 00005382-202305000-00006
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
174-178Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Nishimura RA, Vahanian A, Eleid MF, et al. Mitral valve disease—current management and future challenges. Lancet. 2016;387:1324–1334.
Faggioni L, Gabelloni M, Accogli S, et al. Preprocedural planning of transcatheter mitral valve interventions by multidetector CT: What the radiologist needs to know. Eur J Radiol Open. 2018;5:131–140.
Blanke P, Naoum C, Webb J, et al. Multimodality imaging in the context of transcatheter mitral valve replacement: establishing consensus among modalities and disciplines. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:1191–1208.
Renker M, Fischer-Rasokat U, Walther C, et al. Evaluation of patients for percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair: comparison of cardiac computed tomography angiography with transesophageal echocardiography. J Thorac Imaging. 2022;37:187–193.
Scholtz JE, Ghoshhajra B. Advances in cardiac CT contrast injection and acquisition protocols. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2017;7:439–451.
Prokop M. Multislice CT angiography. Eur J Radiol. 2000;36:86–96.
Pulerwitz TC, Khalique OK, Leb J, et al. Optimizing cardiac CT protocols for comprehensive acquisition prior to percutaneous MV and TV repair/replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;13:836–850.
Rossi A, Dini FL, Faggiano P, et al. Independent prognostic value of functional mitral regurgitation in patients with heart failure. A quantitative analysis of 1256 patients with ischaemic and non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy. Heart. 2011;97:1675–1680.
Wang N, Fulcher J, Abeysuriya N, et al. Tricuspid regurgitation is associated with increased mortality independent of pulmonary pressures and right heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:476–484.
Nijssen EC, Nelemans PJ, Rennenberg RJ, et al. Prophylactic intravenous hydration to protect renal function from intravascular iodinated contrast material (AMACING): long-term results of a prospective, randomised, controlled trial. EClinicalMedicine. 2018;4–5:109–116.
Butcher SC, Fortuni F, Dietz MF, et al. Renal function in patients with significant tricuspid regurgitation: pathophysiological mechanisms and prognostic implications. J Intern Med. 2021;290:715–727.
Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR, et al. Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2317–2327.
Lee CH, Goo JM, Lee HJ, et al. Determination of optimal timing window for pulmonary artery MDCT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:313–317.
Hinzpeter R, Eberhard M, Gutjahr R, et al. CT angiography of the aorta: contrast timing by using a fixed versus a patient-specific trigger delay. Radiology. 2019;291:531–538.
Cademartiri F, Nieman K, van der Lugt A, et al. Intravenous contrast material administration at 16-detector row helical CT coronary angiography: test bolus versus bolus-tracking technique. Radiology. 2004;233:817–823.